The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, I want to put a question on record and ask about the matter which has now taken place at Westminster. It is thought that the Government have been acting illegally in killing healthy animals. If this is so, will it hinder the immediate payment of compensation for those animals? Will it lead to a blockage in the courts, with arguments as to whether the farmers wanted this, or can the matter be resolved in such a way that no compensation hold-ups will take place? This is a matter which must be put on record. I had a brief word with the Minister and informed her that I was doing this.

Mr Speaker: Some of the matters to which the Member refers are not matters of order, but there is a matter of order in this. The Minister made remarks yesterday about some activities that will be taking place, and, to some extent, the Member’s question is whether those will be covered by legal authority.
The second question is whether, if further legal authority is needed, it can be provided by this House or has to be provided by Westminster. I do not know the answer to his question on either front — either whether the statement that the Minister made yesterday is covered by legal authority or, if not, whether legal authority can be provided by early legislation in the Assembly or will require early legislation in another place. I shall have to make enquiries and take advice, and I will respond to the Member when the advice is clear.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Thank you.

EU Structural Funds

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on current issues relating to EU structural funds.

Mr Mark Durkan: I would like to make a statement about some important developments on the European structural funds. In this Building last Thursday, we were able to mark, with the European Commission and the Irish Government, the completion of the negotiations with the Commission on the new round of structural funds. On that occasion, the two member states and Commissioner Barnier formally recorded their agreements to the new Peace II programme and to the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity. This was an important stage in a long and complex process, which began with the Good Friday Agreement. Following that agreement, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister set out to ensure that the European Union acknowledged and gave practical support to the efforts to build a lasting peace in Ireland. In that endeavour they were given strong support and practical help from the two Governments, MEPs and many others.
The two programmes signed last week are the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and Peace II. They both come under the umbrella of the community support framework, which was agreed by the Commission in December. Now that the programmes have been agreed, the next stage is the production of programme complements which will set out details of the types of projects that will be supported. The programme complements will be approved by the monitoring committees.
The first of the operational programmes, formally known as the transitional Objective 1 programme, will be worth £862 million, including the match funding. It will focus on the key areas of economic growth and renewal, employment and social inclusion, and the environment and rural society.
The Peace II programme, which is worth £366 million — again including the match funding — will have the twin objectives of addressing the legacy of the conflict and taking the opportunities arising from peace.
The possibility of continuing support and assistance from the European Union was signalled through the conclusions of the European Council meetings at Cardiff and Vienna during 1998. At Berlin in March 1999, in the culmination of the spending settlement for the entire European budget for the forthcoming seven years, it was decided that Northern Ireland would receive support as an Objective 1 region in transition. In addition, Northern Ireland was given a unique and distinctive privilege in the form of a further special package of funding to continue and develop the work begun under the first EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland. This was secured through the determined efforts of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in conjunction with the two Governments and supported by MEPs and many others. Therefore even the process of securing the new round of funding involved working together in Northern Ireland and on a North/South and East/West basis.
In their negotiations with the Commission and the Presidency in Brussels and Bonn, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister sought assistance with a unique transition. The strong support from the European Union for the process and the Good Friday Agreement has been essential and unique. It allows us to see our place in the future European Union. David Trimble and Séamus Mallon argued that the context called for a new peace programme with some differences from the previous programme. This has been confirmed in the operational programmes that were agreed last week.
The strategic aim of the new Peace II programme is to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation. It will do that by promoting and supporting economic and social development with a special focus on those groups, sectors and areas that have been most affected by the conflict in our society. The aim of the new Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity is to help to create the conditions for sustainable prosperity in a modern, competitive economy.
Since the Berlin Council we have made a good beginning on the transition. We can already point to the creation and continuation of the institutions and to the difference that the Executive are making through the ambitions in the Programme for Government. The new structural funds operational programmes that were agreed last week should be seen in that context.
Last February, when the Executive addressed the approach to Peace II, we committed ourselves to ensuring that the new programme would deliver progress on social inclusion — and with particular respect to the needs of children, women and young people — on North/South co-operation and, most important of all, on the maintenance and development of the local delivery mechanisms which were a unique and successful innovation under Peace I.
These commitments clearly can, and should, guide the use of this programme, and which is relevant to our wider Programme for Government. The Executive returned to those issues in detail in July and December 2000 when the approach to the Peace II operational programme and the transitional Objective 1 programme was confirmed. The direction of the new programmes is therefore based on careful consideration and discussion by the Executive.
In putting in place arrangements for the management and delivery of the new programmes we have also sought to ensure that we have built on the lessons that we learned from the last round of EU structural funds support. New monitoring committees have been appointed for each operational programme and for the community support framework. The membership of those committees reflects proposals drawn up by the social and economic partners in consultation with my Department and agreed by the Executive. The Executive have also retained and built on the unique combination and diversity of organisations involved in planning and managing the delivery of the new structural funds programmes, particularly Peace II. Thus, the combination of local partnerships operating at district council level, intermediary funding bodies and Government Departments, that have been used for Peace I, has been retained in the new peace programme. Additional roles have been specified for the special EU programmes body, in line with its statutory responsibilities.
In implementing the new programme for building sustainable prosperity we will also seek to work in close partnership with local communities, business, trade unions, the voluntary and community sectors and our universities and colleges to help ensure that the activities funded are used to best effect.
In this context, I want to address directly the concern that, in some sense, the Peace II programme represents a step away from the successful approach to local delivery taken under Peace I. On the contrary, Peace II represents an extension and development of important steps we took as a community with Peace I. Within the context of the new institutions the partnership approach can — and, I believe, will — be extended with new dimensions to gain increasing influence on the way in which we do business. They will have a vision and impact that will last well beyond the horizons of the Peace II programme.
Peace I arrived during direct rule, and the opportunities for influencing the business of Government by local politicians, social partners or district councils were minimal. In the context of the new institutions, I see an opportunity for the partnership process to be widened and deepened at both regional and local level. That is the Executive’s vision for this aspect of the Peace II programme. Throughout this process we have sought to work with the European Commission and many in the community who have displayed an unfailing commitment to the exploration of the opportunities that European funding gives.
We were consistently determined to ensure that the principles of partnership and local delivery were developed. We do not want the partnership approach to be confined to European funding, nor do we want it to wither away when that source of income has ceased.
I shall now outline how we envisage the development of this programme at local and regional level. The new round of funding provides an opportunity to radically extend the role and influence of the partnership approach. At local level, the Executive have agreed that the new local strategy partnerships, which will take forward priority 3 of the Peace II programme, will be given the opportunity to develop a strategic approach at local level. Those local strategy partnerships will be encouraged to develop a wider perspective, including increased interaction with the regional Administration and between district council areas.
They will work with the Special EU Programmes Body on North/South co-operation. As set out in the operational programme, their remit includes new dimensions of work on the social economy and human resource development which represent a marked advance and a new opportunity for development of social cohesion at local level.
The new local partnerships being created for the new PeaceII programme both acknowledge what has been achieved in the past and reflect what the Executive want to see achieved for the future. I am on record on several occasions as making it clear that I do not see the principles of local partnerships and partnership working as something that we can apply only to European funding and then throw away once that funding ends. Instead, I want to see partnership work becoming an integral part of how we, as a devolved Administration, ensure that local community voices are heard and influence priorities for spending at local level — not just from European funds but from other sources of public, and indeed private, finance.
The whole purpose of our approach is to increase the scope and significance of decision-making at local level. The principles underlying this new approach to partnership work have also been strongly endorsed by the European Commission during our negotiations on the new Peace programme. Both we and the Commission want to see a strong "bottom-up" approach to partnership work under PeaceII, which will ensure that the final decisions on local priorities are taken by local communities operating at local level. However, to achieve that we must make some key changes to how the partnership model developed under PeaceI operates under the new PeaceII programme and beyond.
First, we must ensure that district councils become involved in the operation of the local partnership model, not just through the participation of individual district councillors, but through the engagement of the district councils at a corporate level in the processes of partnership work, and particularly in supporting the preparation and agreement of the locally based strategies that will underpin the work of the new partnerships. The input of district councils will be particularly important, especially given their wider responsibilities — for example, for local economic development under the transitional ObjectiveI programme.
Secondly, we must ensure that statutory agencies operating at local level become actively involved in partnership work — not in a controlling way, but in a way that will ensure that the broader strategic direction of the Department and its agencies take full account of the view and priorities of local communities operating at local level.
Neither of those changes involves a diminution of the influence of the community at local level. On the contrary, they will provide for that influence to be made more effective through a stronger partnership model. Some are concerned that by having a different structure from those which have gone before, the new partnerships will lose some of their strength. I do not believe this to be the case. The approach that we are taking includes an emphasis on reaching agreement on the details of arrangements for local partnerships at local level. We have agreed in the PeaceII operational programme that there should be an equal partnership on a fifty-fifty basis between two strands — on one hand, government in the wider sense, and on the other, the social partners, the business sector, the trade unions, the voluntary and community sector and representatives of agriculture and rural society.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: If you have that balance, is it not the case that the statutory bodies and those associated with them on the voluntary side will put the elected members of the councils into a minority position for all time?

Mr Mark Durkan: I will cover that and explain it fully during the rest of my remarks. When I spoke of a fifty-fifty balance, I referred clearly to government in the wider sense. That will be local government and central Government, or the agencies of central Government as they operate at local level.
The balance between them will be determined locally. Under the existing partnership model it is not the case that local councils form a majority of membership. Those proposals have been developed through working group arrangements.
The proposals for the various stages of developing the new local partnership model have been developed in consultation with representatives from local councils, existing district partnerships, intermediary funding bodies et cetera. Therefore, council numbers for the Government side are to be agreed locally between local government and the statutory agencies. That is welcomed by many in local government, because they believe it puts them in a stronger position to co-ordinate and liaise with the statutory agencies.
I want to emphasise that I fully understand the concerns expressed by many in the voluntary sector about aspects of that approach. Under the Executive’s proposed approach, the scope for the voluntary and community sector, and for the other social partners, to influence what is evolving is strengthened, because the terms of reference for local strategy partnerships are wider. Therefore, through those partnerships, those participating from the social partner side will have important influence not only on the work on priority 3 by each local strategy partnership but also on the wider policy environment.
I am aware that the fifty-fifty arrangement has been taken to imply that each pillar of the social partners will have 12.5% of the membership. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate to get into the habit of intervening when Ministers are making statements. There will be an opportunity for questions afterwards. If Members wish to ask questions on the ministerial statement, they should advise me and I will try to accommodate them. I will note the Member’s name.

Mr Mark Durkan: I want to make it clear that we have been at pains to note that membership should be decided at local level rather than be imposed. One size does not fit all. Just as local agreement will be needed on the composition of the Government strand of the partnership, I am confident that local agreement can be reached by the social partners on the composition of their strand. If, working on further guidelines, the social partners can agree on a particular formula to be applied at local level, we shall be happy to accommodate such agreement. That could then be reflected in the final guidelines for the local strategy partnerships and incorporated in the programme complement.
Turning to the relationship between the local and regional dimensions of partnership, again I emphasise that the context is different. At the beginning of Peace I, regional partnership was non-existent. I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Partnership Board, which came together at that time and played a crucial role in establishing and developing the district partnerships and in overseeing the unique process that that made possible.
We still need the commitment, expertise and enthusiasm of people from many sectors to move forward. However, many things are different now. The Assembly and the Executive are in place together with the North/South institutions and the Special EU Programmes Body. By placing co-operation on European matters right at the heart of the agreement’s institutions, we are emphasising how significant those issues are for us.
Consistent with the new structural funds regulations, the Executive have decided that the new regional partnership board should have a major role in encouraging the ongoing development of effective partnership working at local level. At regional level, its key contribution will be to support the development of strategies and action plans that work effectively with other sectors. Those include the Departments, other statutory agencies and the private, voluntary and community sectors.
The Executive have decided that a new regional partnership board should be established not only to build on the good work of the Northern Ireland partnership board but also to take it wider and deeper. Just as the local strategy partnerships can work on a wider canvas and influence the planning of other activities in their areas, so the regional partnership board will have a wide remit to promote partnership working. It will work with local strategy partnerships to ensure that this development happens as effectively and as clearly as possible and to ensure that that way of working can be sustained beyond the period of Peace II and become a permanent strength of our Administration.
As the scope of partnership working at regional and local level is now intended to be wider, it was clearly less appropriate for the interface between the partnerships and the regional administration to be located in any one Department. Since the chairperson for this new partnership board is from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the board is at the heart of the new institutions. It is also intended that membership of the new regional partnership board will strongly reflect the perspective, experience and insight of the social partners engaged in the local strategy partnerships.
The Special EU Programmes Body, which is the managing authority for Peace II, will be the secretariat to the new Northern Ireland regional partnership board. It will benefit from close working relationships with the local strategy partnerships in its wider responsibilities for other aspects of EU programmes.
The preparation for the new round of funding has been a long process for all concerned. After the package of support was agreed at the Berlin Council in March 1999, the first main stage was the preparation of the structural funds plan, which was first submitted in November 1999 just before devolution took effect. Following consideration of the key issues by the Executive in February 2000, negotiations on the community support framework (CSF) began last March, and the CSF was approved by the European Commission in December. Those were all necessary stages in the process, and similar steps have been required in respect of structural funds assistance in all member states.
Now that agreement has been reached on the operational programmes, we can look forward to completing the process and ensuring that the new programmes take effect as soon as possible. I have provided a timetable, along with Members’ copies of this statement, to show what will happen next. Under the EU Regulations, the programme complements must be approved by the monitoring committees within three months of the approval of the operational programmes, and we will seek to complete that stage by the end of May. Those will include more detail on the measures making up the programmes and set out more fully the criteria for applications. When the programme complements have been approved, the way will be clear for applications to be invited, so that the first calls for projects can go out in June. The first payments from the new programmes will be available from September.
That timetable for the process sets the context within which the issue of gap funding has arisen. It should be clear to all by now from what I have been saying that the Executive are determined that there should be continuity and development between the Peace I programme and the Peace II programme. These are important changes, designed to ensure that the resources secure sustainable development and important emphases on aspects of economic development, which will make use of the opportunities provided by the new context of peace. However, the fundamental purposes of promoting peace and reconciliation and the inclusive and bottom-up nature of the programme remain very important. Sustaining the work that has gone before under Peace I is important. It is not the case that the peace programmes are about keeping organisations in business or simply maintaining employment. The touchstone has always been the contribution that the organisations and the projects could make to the objectives of the programme.
During the 2000-01 financial year the Executive provided £9 million of gap funding — half for the peace programmes, and half for the mainstream programmes. In my statement to the Assembly on the follow-up to the December monitoring round, I announced a new approach to gap funding to apply for 2001-02. I want to update the Assembly on developments on that front.
Since 12 February the Department of Finance and Personnel has discussed the issue fully with other Departments to ensure that the approach is known and understood. I have also written to the monitoring committees and others concerned to emphasise the Executive’s commitment to making this situation work.
Advertisements have been placed in the press seeking applications from eligible projects. Bids have been sought, and, consistent with the timetable that I have just explained, this scheme can cover the period up to October 2001, by which time the new programme will be fully on stream.
The approach to gap funding is about making sure that those who have been fulfilling the criteria of the Peace I programme — and who are likely to fulfil the criteria of the Peace II programme — will remain in place, fulfilling their objectives and the objectives of the programme without a loss of continuity.
The unique contribution of the European Union to supporting the agreement is something we should celebrate and acknowledge fully at every stage. We thanked Commissioner Barnier last week for that unique and ongoing commitment, which is helping to ensure the continuity of peace and reconciliation funding. It is also helping us to adopt new approaches in our region and lift our eyes beyond our narrow horizons. It is true to say that the assistance of the European Union with the process of peace and reconciliation has been vital and effective. Much credit is due to all who sought and obtained the new round of funding, including the MEPs, the two Governments and especially the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
We now have a clearer basis on which to move these new programmes forward. With the negotiations with the Commission complete, the responsibility now lies entirely with the region to get on and complete the programme complements and to ensure that the call for applications goes out as soon as possible so that the benefits can begin to flow without delay.
I ask all concerned to push these objectives and to unite in working with the Executive, the local councils and social partners in order to achieve important collective objectives. This is a tremendous opportunity for us all. It also poses significant but welcome challenges.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to speak as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and to thank the Minister for his statement, which is most welcome. A large gap is appearing between Peace I and Peace II, which has been discussed many times here, and that gap is increasing, because the new moneys will not be in place until September of this year at the earliest. The Committee will be meeting with departmental officials today to get further briefing on this matter. Our role will be to monitor what is happening in the structural funds.
The Minister spoke of the Northern Ireland Regional Partnership Board and district partnerships. I want an assurance, as a member of a district partnership and of a district council, that that is not just an extension of the partnership board. I know that in a number of councils there have been difficulties identifying the roles of the partnership board and the district council. In my area that was not a problem, and we were able to put together all the political parties and the district sectors of the partnership board, but I want the Minister to ensure that statutory agencies coming to the partnership board will be actively involved in promotion. The Minister should ensure that the two sectors operate on a fifty-fifty basis. The statutory agencies should come to the partnership board with money — not just to block and control and not simply knocking back and ensuring mainstreaming.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his points and, in particular, for the long-standing and helpful interest that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has had in the structural funds and in the peace programme. Over the present financial year we have addressed the concerns about gap funding. We have introduced new arrangements for interim funding for the next financial year so that we can actually make progress towards Peace II. Obviously, last week’s announcements make that all the more significant and provide an even more encouraging backdrop for all concerned.
I recognise Mr Molloy’s point that there has been an uneven relationship between councils and their local district partnerships. That was partly because membership of the partnership boards was based on individual councillors, and boards depended on the quality of an individual’s performance more than that of councils at corporate level. We want to improve that.
It must be remembered that it is not just that new partnerships will have a say in managing Priority 3 and the funding for that. The strategic thinking of the Departments will inform and influence the work of local councils, in their wider areas of responsibilities, and that of other statutory agencies and Departments.
Representatives of statutory agencies participated in partnerships in the last programme and feedback from various sources indicates that there were uneven levels of involvement and interest. One of the things that we have been concerned about in going for the fifty-fifty option is that we did not want to allocate a fixed proportion to the statutory agencies. We felt that that would just invite the danger that they would simply attend in the numbers allocated to them. We believe that they need, through negotiations with local government, to earn their places in the partnerships. We felt that they would, by participating on an agreed basis, show much greater commitment, and that local government would be put in a much stronger position by virtue of liaising at that level.
We want to make everyone’s involvement in the partnership boards more meaningful; not to give local government or the statutory agencies of regional government more control. We want to make them more amenable to the whole partnership ethos. It will mean that they can reflect the important and positive influences that the perspectives of the other social partners on the partnership boards can bring.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I think that it was an American politician some decades ago who said that the best form of social welfare programme is a well paid job. Can the Minister inform us whether a similar philosophy underpins the general approach to the use of these European moneys?
Will he also confirm that since the transition moneys are, by definition, something of a final bite of the cherry that they will be soundly invested to promote the economic competitiveness and growth that will, in future, generate sustainable funding?
I ask that question because there is a perception that at least some of the previous structural funds in the 1980s and 1990s were, in effect, deadweight spending — that is, money that was given to already profitable private companies for investments that they would have found profitable to pursue anyway.

Mr Mark Durkan: We are dealing with two programmes. The programme formerly known as the Transitional Objective I Programme is now called the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity. That programme is what we are getting in order to compensate for the fact that we no longer qualify for Objective I status. It is a special transitional measure. We must use the money well, and we are trying to use it for sustainable economic development. The money for the programme is not additional money, unlike that for the Peace Programme. Nevertheless, it does not relieve us of any of our obligations to make sure that we spend the money judiciously and not on investments that would have been taking place in any event.
We want to spend the money in a way that makes the biggest and most positive difference possible, particularly given the number of serious structural issues that we face as a region. We face many challenges in improving our competitiveness. That is the focus of that particular programme. There will be an improved economic focus on the peace programme and no compromise on the important emphasis that the programme must have on social inclusion. Nor will the integrity of the programme as one that is geared towards peace and reconciliation be undermined.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him and those involved on bringing forward the two programmes, transitional Objective 1 and Peace II. The EU resources that come in the form of those two programmes are very welcome and will help underpin peace, prosperity and the concept of joined-up Government — the connection between local government and central Government.
The new arrangements are an opportunity for local voices to be heard and local issues to be reflected in the policies that are formulated and actions that are taken. The House knows that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Partnership Board (NIPB) — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an opportunity for Members to ask questions, and not for them to make prepared statements. The Member must ask a question.

Mr Joe Byrne: How thorough has the process of consultation been between the officials of the NIPB, the Special EU Programmes Body and the Department of Finance and Personnel? Does the Minister agree that there has been rumour and counter-rumour that is not in the spirit of peace and reconciliation?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am concerned that there has been rumour and counter-rumour, but it is not my place to address that here. I have been perturbed by some of the feedback, but throughout the process I have been determined to ensure that the social partners and the Northern Ireland Partnership Board were fully involved in the transition from Peace I to Peace II.
I acted to ensure that the new monitoring committees were representative of the social partnerships in a new way. The Northern Ireland Partnership Board, the district partnerships and the district councils were fully involved, in the autumn, in the working groups that decided on the agreed way ahead on local strategy partnerships. The group’s proposals were adopted by the interim community support framework (CSF) monitoring committee and then approved by the Executive in December.
I met the Northern Ireland Partnership Board in mid January, and that was followed by the colloquy that I convened at Ballymena on 31 January. A full explanation of the proposed way ahead was given at that meeting, which was attended by representatives from all of the district councils, district partnerships, intermediary funding bodies and Departments.
The secretariat of the NIPB has been represented at the meetings of two groups. One is the department that is concerned with the transition at regional level and the other is the group that is concerned with the preparation of draft guidelines for local strategy partnerships led by the Special EU Programmes Body. The secretariat of the NIPB is responsible for keeping that board informed.
There has been some discussion with the Department for Social Development, and I met the Minister for that Department to hear his views and concerns about some of the issues. It has been, and it remains, my intention to ensure a smooth transition from Peace I to Peace II at local and regional level. I shall be doing that in all good faith and in terms that are consistent with the proper and right decisions that have been taken by the Executive Committee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I want to ask some very pointed questions, and I am not dealing with rumour. The Minister is well aware that I have been keeping a close eye on the process. At every partnership meeting that I have attended I have pointed out the unfair allocation of money that has been given to one side of the community. The Unionist community has been held to ransom. For example, at Castlereagh, there was no money for the victims of the La Mon bombing, but there was money for Irish dancing. I have been involved in this since the beginning, and Jacques Delors made me a promise that the money would be for victims. Unionist victims have not had that money.
I am not alone in that; I have raised the matter at one meeting after another. The Minister had much to say about the uneven allocation of places. What will he do about the uneven allocation of money? Why did he not move on the ring-fencing of grants so that each community would get a fair allocation? Will he do that? What will he do about the two members who were appointed by each of the MEPs to the regional board? So far, I have had no communication from him about that matter. There is an imbalance that must be faced and remedied. I find it amazing that the two Ministers who are responsible for that, Minister Haughey and Minister Nesbitt, are not even in their places today, and they are the people who are looking after the appointments to those boards.

Mr Mark Durkan: Dr Paisley has asked several questions, and I think that that was as close to being a speech as any other question asked here this morning.
I will mainly address the Peace II issues. There is a specific indicative Peace II allocation, at this stage, of £6.7 million for victims. The Executive agreed that in February 2000. That money will be distributed using objective criteria, and the details of the criteria and precise measures will be developed at the programme complement stage that we are now entering.
In our work with the interim community support framework monitoring committee on our proposals for the CSF and the other programmes, we developed and agreed several horizontal principles. Those proposals addressed equality and balance considerations. I made it clear in our work with the committee that those principles partly reflected the need that was identified following Peace I to overcome the obstacles that existed, for whatever reason, and ensure that there was a better balance in the applications for the funds and their distribution. We agreed to take that forward.
I acknowledge the role of the MEPs, not just in making helpful interventions and showing interest in the current round of funding that we are talking about, but also in the Peace I programme. We are beginning a new programme. We are in a new context with new arrangements. Therefore not all of the arrangements for Peace I will be the same for Peace II. The role of the regional partnership board will be different, and the two junior Ministers at the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be chairing it.
I am addressing the issues in these programmes that are part of my responsibility as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I would again point out that we are going to finalise the programme complements. There will be a period of consultation, and the monitoring committees must agree the complements. Dr Paisley says that he has not heard from me on this; I have written to the MEPs seeking a meeting with them at this significant stage in the process.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister should know that my office has been in touch with his office and has arranged a time for that meeting. I was not dilly-dallying.

Mr Speaker: It sounds as though the Minister is looking forward to the meeting.

Mr Seamus Close: I think it might be useful, Mr Speaker, if PeaceII were to break out here, with all the funds that are going around.

Mr Speaker: I am encouraged that the Member thinks it is PeaceII. Some people are still waiting for "peace I".

Mr Seamus Close: Hope springs eternal, does it not? I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is fair to say that this is a good news day. A package of £1·23 billion cannot be sneezed at, nor should it be sneezed at by anyone.
How can the Minister assure the House that sustainability will be seen to be the key? The reference to gap funding in the previous round is a clear demonstration that sustainability was not really taken seriously. In the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, "This will be the last time". Therefore it is essential that sustainability be the key and that that message be really drummed home.
Finally, can the Minister further assure the House that proper and verifiable appraisals will be carried out on all the projects, thus ensuring that there will be a clear demonstration that the bad habits that crept in under previous rounds have been eradicated?

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome the change of Rolling Stones tune from Mr Close. Normally I hear "I can’t get no satisfaction" in the Chamber. I am glad that he welcomes the stage we are at with these programmes, but we have still more work to do. He rightly identifies the important principle of sustainability. It is important not just for us but also for the European Commission. Essentially, part of the contract in Peace I was meant to be sustainability, and people receiving funding under Peace I were meant to make arrangements to ensure the sustainability of their projects and to provide exit strategies.
However, the difficulties that we are witnessing show that that has not happened. In fairness, all the blame cannot be laid at the doors of the individual projects. One of the things that we must do in the next round is to not just address the issue of sustainability as a hard economic test, the burden of which falls solely on each individual project, but also develop a wider framework for sustainability. We must see how we can ensure the sustainability of the sort of programmes, models, measures and mechanisms that have been developed under Peace I and that we want to see developed under Peace II. It is in the wider context of ensuring the sustainability of that sort of approach that organisations will find themselves even better equipped and even better motivated to concentrate on maximising their own specific grounds for sustainability.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I welcome the statement. Can the Minister elaborate on the role of the intermediary funding bodies? What percentage of the peace funds will be channelled through them, and how will they be chosen?

Mr Mark Durkan: The intermediate funding bodies are being chosen on the basis of competitive tender in this round. That was agreed by the Executive. I know that some of the existing bodies were disappointed by that decision, but we believed that it was important, given that this is a new programme. We also believe that it is important given the European Commission’s requirements and our own public procurement requirements, because in a sense the work of these bodies really is an important contract.
We are looking at an indicative distribution of 34% of the programme being managed by intermediary funding bodies.

Ms Jane Morrice: I too rise to welcome the securing of the European funding and to congratulate the team for the work they have done to get it. I also thank Europe and the European Union for this commitment to Northern Ireland.
The Minister has concentrated most of his efforts on changing the partnership approach. My argument is this: if it is not broken, why fix it? What is the Minister doing to keep his own house in order? He will be aware of the findings of the Public Accounts Committees on European funding. I refer to what Seamus Close called "bad habits" in Government funding.
How much money is going to be channelled directly through the Government? How will the Minister ensure that that money actually goes to peace and reconciliation and not to pet Government projects? How can he ensure that funding is not blocked? We have some projects still waiting for money to be channelled from certain Departments which was promised months, if not years, ago. How can the Minister guarantee that the process will flow smoothly?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for the welcome that she gave to the announcement and for her thanks to the officials involved, who have undertaken an enormous amount of work. It is appropriate that thanks are expressed here by Members. The European Union is also due proper recognition.
Following on from the last question about how much the intermediate funding bodies are going to handle, in the next programme, the Department will be handling, on the basis of the indicative allocation that we are working on, some 39% of the funding in the next round.
I also point out, as I indicated in my speech, that the Executive undertook last February to monitor what the Departments would do about their measures on social inclusion, and especially the inclusion of women, children and young people, North/South activity, and using local delivery mechanisms. As I have tried to stress, we do not see the only funding going to and through local delivery mechanisms as being the funding under priority 3. We want to see that used more widely.
We are going to manage this programme in a meaningful way, and we have much more robust and more meaningful monitoring arrangements in place for this programme than was the case for the last one. The monitoring committees in the last round did not have a clear remit. They had very big and unwieldy memberships. We have, with the help of the social partners, designed a much more streamlined and coherent role for the monitoring committees.
There will also be clear reportage. The European Parliament will require annual reportage on how we are managing these issues and spending the moneys. There are problems with completing the spend in Peace I. All the allocations under Peace I have been made, but not all the money has been drawn down. My Department, other Departments and the Special EU Programmes Body are working with the district partnerships and intermediary funding bodies, to try to ensure that that money is drawn down and well spent.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Many groups and organisations will also welcome that we have at least reached this stage in the process.
I have looked at the timetable that the Minister has provided. There are concerns that the bulk of the money will not filter down to the ground until around January 2002. Given those concerns, does the Minister believe that the existing arrangements are adequate for the gap funding, given that he has acknowledged the valuable work of the voluntary and community sector? Can the Minister assure the House that that European Union money will be truly additional and that it will not be used by Departments and statutory agencies to do what they should be doing already?
Finally, in the last line of paragraph 13, the Minister refers to the use of "private finance" in the future. Can he give more details on how he envisages that finance being used?

Mr Mark Durkan: I will first deal with the issue of additionality. Peace II moneys, as with Peace I funds, are additional, and we respect that fact. We have been at pains to ensure that the peace programmes and the programme for building sustainable prosperity were distinctive in this way. As a result, significant changes had to be made to the draft of each programme, precisely to ensure and underpin the necessary distinctiveness, which is part of the guarantee of additionality.
We have now made arrangements to build on the £9 million of gap funding that we have allocated for the current financial year. That allocation of funding from the Executive’s budget shows that the Executive are sensitive and responsive to those problems. A different approach is to be taken in the next financial year, which will be geared towards facilitating the transition to Peace II, particularly in the context of the operational programmes. The funding to be available under that mechanism can last until October, and we expect that that money will be allocated in September, based on the timetable I have outlined. This progression will, of course, be subject to our getting the necessary agreement on the programme complements on time in May, but with a big effort we can do that. If there are any other difficulties we will simply need to stretch the transition funding arrangement that we are planning. We are, therefore, dealing with the Member’s concerns about gap funding.
We have no plans to use private finance on any particular project or in any particular way. However, the strategic partnerships are meant to be local, which should have an influence and a strategic bearing on a number of issues in their areas — not just priority 3 — and all the social partners, including businesses, should be involved. Several measures being taken at local level already involve some private financial investment or activity. In the light of that, all such positive developments should be within the purview of those local partnerships.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his statement, although I regret that he did not see fit to mention in his statement the fact that the structural funds were not additional. Before we throw our hats in the air with joy about that £860 million, we should remind ourselves that the funding is simply a mechanism by which the European Union graciously allows the United Kingdom to spend its own money, albeit that the amount spent in Northern Ireland is higher than it would otherwise have been.
The Minister referred to match funding, although not in quantum. In the context of his comments on sustainability, does he believe that when those programmes end, the part of the spending that was represented by match funding might continue to be applied to the same measures in the future? It could be argued that that would not be a further burden on public expenditure as provision for such spending is already there.

Mr Mark Durkan: I regret that I was unable to cover every detail on match funding in the statement. I assumed that most people knew that Peace II money was additional while the transitional Objective I funding was not. There was no attempt to mislead by omitting to mention that fact in my statement.
Secondly, match funding is obviously a requirement that we must meet in respect of these programmes. Europe requires that. If the emphasis on the programme for building sustainable prosperity, which Mr Leslie seems to be most interested in, is to underpin sustainable economic development, when we come to the end of it, all those measures, areas of activity and sectors that have been benefiting under that programme will still have to be taken forward, depending on what stage of development they are at.
We will have to take decisions at that point. How do we sustain that development? I do not think anybody is pretending that all areas of those programmes will involve a finite commitment, within the life of these programmes, to those areas. There will be ongoing commitments with consequences. That is one of the reasons for, when deciding what measures we are going to adopt or support under these programmes, having an eye to longer-term sustainability.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him and his team on the management of a complex and lengthy process. Although there are still a couple of months to go on those programmes, today’s announcement will be of immense significance to how we progress. I am also conscious that there is a challenge ahead with sustainable prosperity. Given that a sound energy infrastructure is vital for economic development, equality of opportunity and access to prosperity, can the Minister confirm that those programmes can be used to support gas pipeline development so that people from outside Belfast, and especially those in the greater north-west, can enjoy a level plain field?

Mr Mark Durkan: A notional sum of five million euros has been included in the new programme for building sustainable prosperity precisely for energy.
Once proposals for pipeline development have been evaluated, funding for economic growth and competitiveness — a priority of the programme — can be redistributed to allow for the implementation of gas pipeline expansions. The key issue is the appraisal of realistic proposals from the private sector.
My Colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, will ensure that that receives proper attention, not just from his Department, but also from the Executive, at the proper time. I also remind Members that in the Budget and under the Programme for Government, we established an Executive Programme fund, which includes money for infrastructure and capital renewal.

Mr Edwin Poots: Not for the first time is the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister showing gross discourtesy to the House by not turning up this morning for something in which it plays such a key role. I also have to say to Mr Close that we are not receiving manna from heaven. Perhaps the people of Northern Ireland are just getting back some of the money they have paid in taxes.
Does the Minister accept that while he intends to build on the strength of partnerships, he needs to eradicate the weakness of partnership? I bring to his attention accountability, fairness and equality, which we have not had in the past. Millions of pounds have been squandered, yet the Protestant community was so discriminated against in Lisburn that it ground the whole partnership system to a halt. What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that that does not happen with the Peace II money?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have already dealt with the point about balance. There are horizontal principles that will apply in the new programmes, not least in the Peace II programme. They aim to respect our equality obligations fully and to ensure that there is an optimum balance in the use and share of those resources.
With regard to some of the criticisms that have been made about some allocations, obviously a number of measures were taken under Peace I. It would be unfortunate if whatever legitimate concerns or criticisms there may be were now laid at the door of local partnerships. The fact is that the district partnerships faced an enormous task during the life of Peace I, not least because of the novelty and the difficult circumstances that there were in the early days of the partnership enterprise.
However, important lessons have been learnt, including some about deficiencies in the partnerships. Those deficiencies were not in the commitment or the qualities of those involved in partnerships but were deficiencies in the structures. We are trying to make that good by establishing a new and more strategic form of partnership at the local level. That will serve local communities in their fullest and broadest sense and not just in relation to European funding and the Peace programme — the partnerships will go far beyond those measures and will outlast them. I hope that people will recognise that, by bringing forward these changes, we are trying to respond to some of the difficulties and frustrations experienced by the partnerships and others in the last round. We are also trying to improve every other measure under this programme.

Mr Roy Beggs: I too welcome the Minister’s statement advising that Northern Ireland taxpayers’ money will be returned from Europe through the transitional Objective 1 and Peace II programmes.
Does the Minister accept that the intermediary funding bodies in the Peace I structure were highly bureaucratic and that local groups often had to apply to several bodies to achieve a total funding package, thus wasting time and effort? Will the Minister advise that there will be a reduction in the overall amount of money spent on administration in Peace II so that more money can be directed towards the groups and projects on the ground? Is the Minister aware of the inequalities of the previous systems, particularly the money spent by intermediary funding bodies? For example, the Educational Guidance Service for Adults spent a total of £4·3 million but only £26,000 in my constituency. Will he ensure that there will be equality in future spending by intermediary funding bodies?

Mr Mark Durkan: In acknowledging the important questions raised by the Member, I make the point that intermediary funding bodies had a range of responsibilities under Peace I. They managed different types of funding over a range of sectoral areas. It is not the case that all allocations made by intermediary funding bodies — which are made at a regional level — are subject to a detailed breakdown at local level. Some allocations can be represented at constituency or council level, but that is not always the case. It is common for Departments to be in a similar position. Therefore it would be unfair to use that test against intermediary funding bodies. We must remember that we are dealing with different types of programmes and funding.
We are trying to make sure that any deficiencies that existed in Peace I are rectified and improved upon. In response to the early part of the question, we recognise that there were problems of "cocktail" funding for both funders and applicants. We are trying to streamline those matters. Part of what is being attempted with the new local strategy partnerships is to enable them to respond to the interests and ideas of different groups locally — not just in relation to the funding managed locally by the local strategy partnerships but wider EU programmes. That is why they will be in a strong position to work with the Special EU Programmes Body, which is the managing authority for the wider Peace programme.
We want to see a stronger network of information and contact, so that people will not have to make lots of speculative applications all over the place and so that they will receive better advice and direction. The Special EU Programmes Body is an important asset in this round of funding, and it rectifies a clear deficiency in the last round. The programmes body, particularly as the secretariat of the regional partnership board, will be in a strong position to work closely with the local strategy partnerships.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I too welcome the Minister’s statement and appreciate his work and that of his team. Can he outline more specifically how the stronger economic focus of Peace II will be given effect?

Mr Mark Durkan: The stronger economic focus in Peace II is not there to the exclusion of the emphasis that needs to be there for our own purposes and, indeed, in the European Commission’s interests on social inclusion, nor will it in any way impair the quality of this programme as one that clearly has to be centred on peace and reconciliation. With an emphasis on regeneration as well as reconciliation, this programme can contribute to economic improvement, and those improvements will, in turn, underpin social inclusion.
As other Members have said, sustainability will obviously be a fundamental principle that underlies the programme, and project sponsors will be required to ensure that, where possible, projects and actions can continue beyond the life of the peace programme. That is particularly relevant when we are talking about those measures that are in the more economic area.
I must point out that under priority 3 there are local economic initiatives that can be taken that will specifically come in to the social economy area, for we have responded to some of the concerns that were expressed about earlier drafts of Peace II that had local economic development in under that measure. That measure has, in turn, been transferred to the transitional Objective 1. We have, therefore, been able to maintain that economic focus, while at the same time ensuring that it does not skew against the strong social inclusion emphasis that has to be there.
If we are serious about taking advantage of all the opportunities that arise from peace, and if we are serious about building on the successes of Peace I, we should want to build new ways that sustain both economic as well as social growth.

Mr William Hay: I would like to bring the Minister back to the issue of ring-fencing. I want to say very seriously to the Minister that in my constituency of Foyle, if it had not been for myself and others in our district partnership fighting to try to ring-fence some money for the Protestant community, that community would have lost out desperately.
There is no doubt that in my constituency, when money was ring-fenced — and not only for the Protestant community, for some Nationalist groups lost out as well — it worked. You were able to go to a community and say "Here is your money; you come up with a project or programme to fit around it" rather than "Come up with a programme or project, and we might get you the money". Under Peace II, that is an important issue to be looked at, especially in a community that is coming from a very low base and one that is, perhaps, not as active as the Nationalist community in filling in application forms and going for funding. We could argue here all day as to why that is happening.
The Minister has to try to build on success. In my community and in the Foyle constituency we all saw money —

Mr Speaker: I urge the Member to put his question to the Minister.

Mr William Hay: I want the Minister to take a serious look at ring-fencing money for communities that are coming from a very low base.
I have another question. There are councils and partnerships who, for whatever reason, will find it difficult to form a partnership to try to draw down this money. If that happens and the partnership is not formed, what does the Minister intend to do?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member raised several points, some of which have been touched on by others. I refer the Member to the horizontal principles that are meant to govern the use of this funding. I also stress that we are talking about having the partnerships, not just as local delivery mechanisms, but as local decision-making mechanisms.
The Executive are trying to ensure wider understanding of that point and issue. Therefore, at this stage, it is not for the Executive, the Department of Finance and Personnel or the Special EU Programmes Body to start ring-fencing money that might be allocated by particular partnerships. As the Member’s last question indicates, the Executive are trying to encourage people to reach the agreement required to create new strategic partnerships locally. Therefore the Executive are trying to take account of people’s needs and concerns and reflect those in a positive and pragmatic way consistent with all of the principles.
Stronger monitoring arrangements are in place for this programme than was the case for the last programme. Notwithstanding the problems that Members have legitimately identified, there has also been significant progress in respect of some of the problems associated with Peace I — not least through some innovative interventions and allocations by local partnership boards. In those cases more was done to make good the deficit in application of funds to particular areas and communities.
The intermediary funding bodies have seen the same improvements in making progress against that problem. It would be wrong for the Executive to suggest that there has not been progress on that issue just as it would be wrong for me to imply that more progress is not needed or would not be welcome.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I welcome the statement’s commitment to new partnership arrangements that will enhance and increase the role of local government and district councils. That is important given the democratic nature of local councils and the important role that elected representatives and councillors have to play. There is concern among others who played a significant role in the previous partnership arrangements at the make-up of the new boards. Will the Minister indicate in more detail his thinking on the role that those other sectors will play in the new partnership arrangements?
Paragraph 24 of the statement states that the secretariat to the new Northern Ireland regional partnership board is to be the Special EU Programmes Body. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind that? Does he accept that that will not be viewed by some people in Northern Ireland as a positive development, but could rather cause some alienation with regard to the inclusiveness of the arrangements?
Will the Minister take on board the comments made by my Colleagues on this side of the House about the need to ensure that the lack of community infrastructure and capacity in the Protestant and Unionist community is recognised and acknowledged in the new arrangements? Will the Minister ensure that positive steps are taken to redress the deficiencies of the previous arrangements?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member raised several points for which I thank him.
The Executive are trying to ensure that local government’s role at a corporate level is bedded more strongly in the partnership model for the future. The Executive do not want local government to dominate the partnerships or displace the influence of any other sector. The Executive want more of the capacity of local and regional government through the statutory agencies to be brought to the table of partnership.
With regard to the fifty-fifty model, it must be remembered that the Executive are saying that it will be for local government and the statutory agencies to determine locally what the balance should be. Some Members have suggested that the Executive should opt for a model that allocates a fixed 25% to local government, a fixed 25% to the statutory agencies, et cetera. That is not the best way to go because there is a danger of revisiting the situation where people from the statutory agencies turn up only to make up the numbers, rather than properly working their passage and engaging in the real spirit of partnership. Also, I am very conscious that we are talking about reviews of public administration and reviews of local government that might well see a change in the balance between the functions and capacities of local government and the statutory agencies. That is why, in setting the partnership on a fifty-fifty basis, we will have a model which can develop not only over PeaceII but also beyond PeaceII. We need to take account of the wider factors.
With regard to the interests of other sectors, we have been asked to embrace the principle of social partnership throughout all consultations that we have engaged in. I have also been urged by people in working groups, by social partners — and this reflects the district partnership perspective and the local government perspective too — not to impose a one-size-fits-all model. In that respect it is now 50% participation for social partners. Some people have suggested that we should fix the partnership at 25% for the community and voluntary sector, and 25% for business, trade unions and the rural and agriculture sector. I have no problems if people agree that level locally, or if at regional level the social partners, in the negotiations that will take place on the programme complements, can agree that.
It would be wrong if we imposed that model. Many people have told me that they believe that different levels can be arrived at locally. I am happy to look at building in threshold guarantees to particular sectors. It is something that I looked at but was dissuaded from because people told me to allow it to go forward and be negotiated. I hope that reassures people. Like MrDodds, many people have been in touch with me, and when I have explained what we are doing and why we are doing it, they are reassured and wonder why others have been telling them yarns.

Beef and Pig Sectors

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That this Assembly accepts and endorses the findings and recommendations contained in the two reports published by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development — ‘Restoring Profit for the Beef Producer’ (2/00/R) and ‘Restoring Profit for the Pig Producer’ (3/00/R) — and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (and others involved in the beef and pig sectors) to take all the necessary steps to implement the recommendations.
Let me make it clear that this motion was unanimously agreed by the Committee. It is the Committee’s motion, and it was agreed by all parties who attended the meeting.
Last year, as Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, I tabled a motion in the House seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the Committee’s first major report, ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A fair deal for the farmer’. The motion was agreed without a division. That report was the first of a series of three to come out of the Committee’s inquiry into debt in the agriculture industry.
Today I have tabled a similar motion, on the Committee’s behalf, seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the final two reports and asking that the Assembly seek the implementation of the 15recommendations contained in the beef sector report and the nine recommendations in the pig industry report. I was asked if now was the appropriate time to introduce those reports? My answer is emphatically "Yes". Farmers are in desperate need of some hope for the future. Even before the current crisis, hope was a rare commodity in the farming community. Some farmers are going out of business, and others are struggling with crippling debts. The recommendations in both reports offer hope for the future, but only if they are implemented.
I firmly believe that the Assembly’s endorsement of the reports and recommendations, and the momentum for change in those recommendations, will be too great for the Department and others in those industries to ignore.
12.00
The title of each report says it all — "Restoring profit". Would any of the Members here expect to run a business, support a family and uphold their local economy without the prospect of a fair return for their labours? Not one. That is all that farmers are asking for, and all that my Committee is being a voice for in the House. The Committee has investigated those important matters and has given a real insight into what is happening in agriculture today.
The report on the beef industry was launched on 15 December 2000, the report on the pig industry two months later. Those reports were the result of the Committee’s consideration of 14 long written submissions and 13 very long oral evidence sessions. That represents a significant body of evidence from all sides of the industry. The Minister must lend her ear to the evidence. I commend all those who took part in the inquiry and I commend those in the Committee who worked hard at their task.
The Committee made 15 recommendations on the beef industry. They covered a wide range of subjects including EU matters, herd improvement, the creation of effective and efficient partnerships, opening new markets, branding, quality and strategic involvement of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the industry. I only have time to concentrate on a few of those today.
First, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s strategic role. Based on the evidence before it, one of the Committee’s firm conclusions was that the massive superiority of the market power of both processors and retailers was leading to the poor returns faced by beef farmers. We also found that the fragmentation of beef production was a real obstacle to the creation of a modern responsive supply chain.
Therefore one of our main recommendations was that the Department should set a high priority on the transformation of beef production from a collection of individual farmers with no market power to a market-oriented organised force, able to respond with a quality product. We recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should create and lead a task force to help that to happen. What is the use of having the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development if it is not going to help the farmers? What is the use of turning the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development into a police force to look after and monitor farmers, rather than helping them to win markets?
Within the existing supply chain, Northern Irish beef is being processed and sold profitably but without an acceptable return for the producers. They are the Cinderellas of the high business strategy employed by large companies in our Province today. Those large companies are not going bankrupt, but the farmers are. The directors of those companies are not committing suicide, but some farmers are. Those companies give a tremendous return to their shareholders while the farmer has a pittance and his income is cut by over 50%.
Another issue that the report highlighted was the alleged price differential between Northern Irish beef and that sold in Great Britain. The Committee defends Northern Ireland’s farmers — their beef is second to none. They deserve the same reward for their labours as their fellow farmers in the rest of this United Kingdom. We have recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development investigate the allegations with a view to securing comparable returns for similar livestock.
The Committee was most concerned about evidence regarding the deterioration in the quality of beef cattle presented for slaughter. There are several reasons for that, including the high percentage of input from the dairy herds. Another significant factor is the lack of price incentives from processors to encourage farmers to present animals of a higher quality. During evidence sessions even the processors agreed that there was not a wide enough gap in prices in Northern Ireland.
Therefore the main thrust of the Committee’s recommendations in that area is twofold. The Department must prepare an overall strategy for herd improvement that involves the whole industry, and processors must alter their pricing policies to offer stronger incentives. The Committee welcomed the Department’s beef quality initiative, announced in the Programme for Government, as a major step in the right direction. However, when the Committee questioned officials about the proposed scheme at the beginning of March it was disappointed to learn that processors had not commented on the individual proposals, although they supported the principle of the scheme. We want to see the principle not just supported but transformed into action.
That demonstrates the importance of the fully developed involvement of processors, as recommended by the Committee. If processors do not act, we fear, the initiative will not succeed, as the main tangible benefits to encourage farmers to undertake quality production — a premium for their animals — will not exist.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the Minister has responded positively to the beef report. In her letter of 22 February, Ms Rodgers congratulated the Committee on producing a concerted and concentrated examination of the issues. Although it may appreciate those remarks, the Committee is more interested in action. Of the 12 recommendations directly relating to the Department, the Minister either will act or is already taking action to implement four of them. Those involve agrimonetary compensation, swift dispersal of payments to farmers, supporting efforts to reopen new markets and, crucially, conducting an investigation into the price differential between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Committee welcomes those actions.
On a further three recommendations — those relating to herd improvement, farm quality assurance and traceability — the Minister appears to accept the Committee’s findings but is not necessarily committing herself to taking to the action proposed in its report. The Committee will be interested to hear today whether the Minister will expand on those areas. In any event, it will seek to ensure that the actions taken by the Minister meet the objectives of its recommendations.
In her reply, the Minister appeared unconvinced about the recommendation to brand Northern Ireland beef. In hearing evidence, the Committee learned about a successful branding exercise to sell our beef in Holland. The Committee also heard that the Great Britain market was largely based on a known-label strategy.
The Committee firmly believes that branding offers the only real protection against product substitution by the big retailers and that it must be pursued. Despite the Minister’s apparent reluctance, the Committee welcomes the fact that the Livestock and Meat Commission is to undertake a study of the scope of branding Northern Ireland red meat. That study should not be delayed, and Members will take a close interest in its findings.
The Minister appears to have rejected three of the Committee’s recommendations. Those recommendations included the banning of imports of foreign beef if there is a risk to consumers or a threat to the industry. That is all the more important today, when meat that has not been properly handled — even under EEC rules — is coming from the continent into Northern Ireland. We also recommended that the Department become a more proactive participant in the beef sector and that producers should be organised into a market-orientated force.
It could be argued that only three rejections out of 12 recommendations is not a bad result for a Committee report. However, recent events, including the importing from Germany and other European countries of beef from which the spinal cord had not been removed, make our recommendation on that all the more valid. As recently as last Thursday, the Ulster Farmers’ Union called for the suspension of EU beef imports. Stern measures are called for.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s involvement and leadership in creating a modern, responsive and powerful production force is crucial to the Committee’s vision for a better future for the beef farmers of Northern Ireland. If the Minister does not accept that our task force recommendation is the right way to go, the members of the Committee and I will be interested to hear her alternative suggestions for improving co-operation among producers and securing real partnership arrangements with powerful processors and retailers.
The final report, ‘Restoring Profit for the Pig Producer’, was launched at a press conference on 16 February. In that report, there were nine recommendations. The Committee has not yet received the Minister’s response to that report, which puts me at something of a disadvantage. I do not criticise the Minister for that; we all know and appreciate that she has been preoccupied in recent weeks. Nonetheless, we look forward with interest to her response today. The Committee will find out only today what the Minister plans to do about our recommendations, so we look forward to meeting her again and having further discussions.
The Committee’s findings covered four areas: the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s strategic involvement in the industry; the Department’s response to the crisis faced by pig producers; producer-processor partnerships, and reserved matters outside the direct control of the local administration. As was the case with the beef sector, the Committee found that the Department should be more proactive in certain areas of its dealings with the industry.
The Committee was most impressed by the efforts of the United Pig Producers’ Co-operative to make a significant change in the supply chain. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development would appear to agree, as it has allocated significant moneys to the co-operative to make it work. However, like the beef sector, there is an imbalance of market power. Pig producers have to either take it or leave it when processors offer them a price. Members felt that there must be a real advantage for processors in the assurance of a ready and consistent supply of quality pigs at an agreed price. However, we heard that the major processor, the Malton bacon factory, had not engaged in a meaningful way with the co-operative. Without such co-operation, further progress is impossible. For that reason, one of our main recommendations is for the Department to become much more closely involved in the negotiations. That processor has benefited from a very large grant assistance from the Department, and the Committee believes that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development therefore has the right — indeed, the obligation — to intervene in that matter.
The Committee also heard evidence on the disparity in prices between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As was the case with beef, the Committee would have recommended that the Department investigate that differential. However, before the report was finalised, the Minister announced an investigation into the conformation of Northern Ireland pigs. The Committee welcomes that. If the findings reveal — as we expect they will — that the processors’ allegations of poor quality are absolutely unfounded, the Committee in its recommendation has urged the Department to follow that up most vigorously.
During our inquiry, there was much debate about the Government’s handling of the crisis in the pig industry, particularly in relation to the catastrophic fire at the Ballymoney processing plant. Northern Ireland pig farmers look endlessly across the border to their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. The welfare scheme offered for pig farmers was nothing in comparison with that, and should not be likened to it. The pig farmers believe that the Government there understood the problems and acted accordingly. They do not believe the same could be said of the Administration here.
Our report calls for the Minister to put in place a scheme that will take into account the specific difficulties faced in Northern Ireland. That would be in addition to the UK-wide pig industry restructuring scheme and would ensure that our producers are not disadvantaged compared to those in the south of this island. I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response to this recommendation which, I believe, has the full support of the pig farmers.
The UK-wide scheme I have just mentioned will have an effect on the overall industry in Northern Ireland. The Minister told the Committee recently that there had been some 800 applications for the outgoers element of the scheme. It is obvious that the Northern Ireland pig industry will be much smaller when that scheme concludes. The Committee believes that its recommendations lay the foundations for more profitable times for those who decide to continue rearing pigs.
It is essential that support be given to the pig farmers quickly. It is now a year since Nick Brown, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the UK scheme. Such a delay, I trust, will not be the fault of the local Minister, and the Committee finds it acceptable and recommends that she lobby Colleagues to ensure that funds reach their destination much sooner in the future.
In conclusion, these reports are important milestones in the hopes for the recovery of the two important sectors of our industry, which at the moment are in turmoil. I commend them to the Assembly. I ask the Assembly to support the motion in order to send a clear message to the agricultural and wider rural communities that it is aware of, and is seriously concerned about, the future of our greatest industry in Northern Ireland. The Assembly must show that it is seeking to help farmers remain in the industry and give those that have given their lives to farming a proper retirement. It must bring new people into the farming industry who wish to remain in the farming community.

Mr Speaker: This is a time-limited debate and a substantial number of Members wish to participate. I have to put a limit of seven minutes on subsequent speeches, save for the Minister, to whom the usual rule of thumb of 10 minutes per hour of debate will apply. Even with that limit, all who wish to speak may not be able to do so. We must adhere to the time limit.

Mr George Savage: As Deputy Chairperson, I support what the Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has said. Our recommendations in the two reports were not made lightly. I hope that our efforts have gone some way towards providing a new beginning for the two parts of our industry that are in grave need.
As we pursued the two elements of our inquiry, the similarities in the problems faced by pig and beef producers in Northern Ireland made an impression on Committee members. Farm debt in both sectors had its roots in many different fundamental causes. Some of these were outside the control of farmers and others in Northern Ireland. However, it also became clear that in both cases producers were not getting a fair crack of the whip when it came to making profit from the food chain.
The Chairman has rightly concentrated on the Committee’s recommendations to the Department and I would encourage the Minister to implement them without delay. It is also worth noting that we made several recommendations to others in the industry and I wish to highlight some of those. In the beef report we recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should create and lead a task force to organise production. We followed that through by recommending that producers co-operate fully with that initiative and make any investments necessary to ensure its success.
There is a saying about leading a horse to water. Similarly, one cannot make farmers co-operate or participate even if the best of schemes are provided. However, our report recognises that producers must get involved and act together rather than stand alone. They are at the mercy of more powerful forces.
Making investments will not be easy decisions for farmers, but I fully expect that farmers will put their hands in their pockets if they are convinced that it will ultimately secure a better return. I say that again: they will do so if they are convinced that it will ultimately secure a better return.
When we made recommendations on beef herd improvements, we asked the Department to prepare the strategy and asked the processors to play their part by offering the right incentives. We have also asked producers to pay more attention to improving the overall quality. Even if the incentives are there, it is the producers who will still have to make them operable. Farmers should not fall into the trap of saying "Why should I bother?" A far more valid response would be "Make it worth my while." Farmers must throw out the challenge to factories and processors and say "If you make it worth my while, I will produce the best beef this country has ever seen." That is where the crux of the matter lies.
We continued this theme in our report on the pig industry. We included two recommendations aimed at the producers and processors: to take their product and to make their product. We have urged the establishment of an equal partnership between processors and co-operatives. We have encouraged those involved in co-operatives to stick to their task. If co-operatives can provide a quality supply on which processors can fully depend, processors must see the attractions eventually.
A team effort is required from both the beef and pig sectors. All sides must have equal standing and respect for each other if the supply chains are to operate to their full potential. These are two good reports that have gone to the heart of the problems faced by local farmers and have offered some solutions. The problems will not go away because many aspects of the industry are currently outside the control of the producers. However, in the coming days I hope that those problems will be overcome. I urge all farmers to take on board what the Committee has been trying to do. We will not walk away from the problems. I hope that farmers will rise to the challenge that lies before them and make Northern Ireland a place where we produce only the best.
I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have consulted with the Committee Clerk. We did not receive the letter to which the Minister referred. I have also sent word to my office, and we did not receive a letter there either. I would be grateful to the Minister if she would let us have a copy of the letter.

Mr Speaker: The Minister may respond.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have a copy of the letter here which was issued by my Department.

Mr Speaker: I cannot be responsible for the Post Office or for whatever service delivers — or in this case does not deliver. However, since we are now due to break for lunch, I trust that it may be possible for a copy of the letter to be conveyed to the Chairperson, and then all needs will be satisfied.
The debate stood suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Mr P J Bradley: I will not dwell on the beef aspect of the motion since the announcement made in Brussels at lunchtime has rather overtaken us. I am pleased to be one of the first Members of the Assembly to welcome the announcement that regional status has been granted to Northern Ireland. As a South Down MLA and a Newry and Mourne district councillor, I accept the Minister’s explanation that the entire Newry and Mourne area will have to wait a short while before it too can enjoy this regional status. I am, however, satisfied that we will not have to wait a moment longer than is necessary before the restrictions are removed.
Now that regional status has been granted, I thank Ms Rodgers, who is not present at the moment, and her team for their endless efforts and for overcoming the unforeseen problems which arose on the way to achieving this. Well done to the Minister and to everyone else concerned.
On the question of profit creation and who should have a role in the recovery of the beef industry, we all agreed that the process should start with the farmers. However, that responsibility also extends to the processors, the retailers and the housewives — particularly the Northern Ireland housewives — who need to ensure that profits return to the farmers.
The obstacle presented by the strength of sterling will continue to burden the agriculture industry and all local industries that depend on export markets. It is an obstacle that we could do without, but it would be pointless to ask Tony Blair or Gordon Brown to do anything about it.
The report highlights the level of mistrust between the farmers and the rest of the supply chain. A united approach to supplying the market with adequate quantities of top quality produce at the right time for a mutually agreed price is an important piece in the jigsaw of recovery. However, as I said at the outset, we held our breath today as we waited the outcome of the Standing Veterinary Committee’s deliberations in Brussels. The decision in our favour gives us a new foundation upon which to restore profits. Without knowing the full details of the regional status announcement, and despite the current gloom, this is a good day for Northern Ireland farmers.
On the section of the report which deals with the pig industry, the fight to restore profits to this sector will be more difficult than our long fight for beef recovery. I recall the evidence of Mr Forbes of the Ulster Curers’ Association in response to a question about the role played by such supermarkets as Sainsbury’s.
Mr Forbes’s reply reflected the views of many when he pointed out that the multiples pushed for quality assurance but then failed to pay the price for quality goods. They buy foreign products as an alternative. Until we can break the stranglehold which the multinationals have upon the agriculture industry, we will continue to have a non-profit situation on our farms.
I have decided, in the short time available to me, to deal with labelling and branding. I wish to look at the evidence given by the President of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Mr Douglas Rowe, on that issue. Mr Rowe’s view is that everybody in the agriculture industry must explore the branding concept. I share his view that Northern Ireland needs a brand of its own — a brand name that will indicate quality produce at a glance. I call upon the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to lead on the issue of branding. It has the necessary finances at its disposal and the marketing expertise to back it up.
That gives me an opportunity to raise an old hobby horse of mine and to re-emphasise a point that I have often made in the past — although it is probably an issue for another day. I refer to the stamping of our pork and the tagging of our animals for live export. All references to being UK born and bred will have to be removed from the identity tags and replaced by an Irish or Northern Irish identity if we really want to cash in on our many advantages and new regional status.
I want to express a personal view — that the demise of the small producer was the beginning of the end for the pig industry. The disappearance of the 10 to 12 sow units is a factor that has probably led to the current problems. Why did they exit the industry? I believe that the people who would be most embarrassed if they were asked that question today would be the millers and the grain traders. They ate into the profits of the small producers with weekly increases in feed prices until they eventually put the farmers out of business. Northern Ireland producers had to pay up to £15 per tonne more than their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. Is it any wonder that they went out of business?
The vast majority of young people in Northern Ireland under 20 years of age and living in the countryside have not seen a sow or a pig in their lifetime — that is how serious it is. As I look around the House, I would say that there are many Members who have not seen a sow or a pig in the last 30 years. The return of the pig to the small farms in Northern Ireland could well be the lifeline that the industry needs. I believe that that aim — albeit somewhat ambitious at this stage — should be addressed by those designated with the responsibility of regenerating the countryside.
From our numerous sessions of evidence, there emerged the belief that the setting up of producers’ groups and co-operatives would be to the overall benefit of the industry. I agree, but it is my belief that this is not completely achievable if the small pig producer does not return to the industry. I repeat that regionalisation is the key to restoring profit to the beef industry. I thank the Minister and her team for their success on that issue. Restoring the pig industry to what it was in the late 60s and 70s may well be the way to reinstate profit for the pig industry.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: This is a most opportune time to debate agricultural issues, given the crisis that is being experienced in our country. It is unfortunate, however, that many of the Benches in the House do not seem to reflect the seriousness of this crisis as they are empty today. I hope that Members realise that if they are going to appear on television and go to other places and talk about a crisis in agriculture yet fail to turn up here and debate the crisis, then people will read into that that their only interest is a self-interest.
I am very pleased that our Committee was able to come to unanimous recommendations on restoring profit to both the pig and beef sectors. It is good that we have had this debate, and I commend to the House the report that has been proposed by the Committee Chairperson and supported by the Members who have spoken so far. If anyone takes a moment and goes into the Senate Chamber of this Building —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Member not find it strange that no representative of the Government is in the House today to sit at the Bench and listen to this debate? That would not be tolerated in any other Parliament in the United Kingdom. The Minister responsible — or someone she has deputed — should be here to listen to the debate. How can she reply to anything said in this debate if she has not even heard it?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am bitterly disappointed that there appears to be a lack of interest, particularly on the Front Benches.
I think that that should go on the record. We are supposed to be in an era of joined-up Government, but where is it? That is evidenced by today’s debate on this serious issue. If one takes a moment to go into the Senate, one will see three representations on the gallery backdrop of the prime industries that ran Northern Ireland when this building was first opened: the industries of textile, shipbuilding and agriculture. If we in this House are not careful, we will be writing an obituary for the agriculture industry. It is very unfortunate that those other industries have declined so rapidly, but it would be a shame to see an obituary for this premier industry.
We want to see the Department implement what these reports say. We want to see a can-do attitude to ensure that an industry so important to Northern Ireland is developed and grows. We do not want to have a cannot-do or a not-allowed-to-do attitude because of European Regulations; we want to have a can-do Government.
The officials in our Department are very clever men and women who have shown their ability in times past. Those people must be allowed to use that ability to get this industry out of the crisis that it is in. A lot of people are concerned that their abilities are being hampered by regulations and rules from other places rather than being used, and that is a scandal.
It would be odd not to say something about the regionalisation announcement today. It has come at last, but people are right to say that it took long enough to come. Others seemed to be out on the starting-blocks before us, and it is disappointing that Northern Ireland still has to wait another week before the effect of that announcement will kick in. I hope that when it does kick in we will get some benefit from it, for the good of the industry.
I also want to refer to an article that appeared in Saturday’s ‘News Letter’ by Mr Alex Kane. In it he took to task not only the Minister here but the Minister at MAFF and, indeed, the Agriculture Committee for not doing enough. He said
"Politicians need to take a fairly ruthless look at the so called plight of our farmers. So far there has been no evidence that the Assembly Agricultural Committee is prepared to do this. For it seems prepared to act as a tax-payer funded lobby group for the industry pleading for new funds and increased understanding rather than face economic realities".
If Mr Kane had taken the time to read the reports he would have seen that they proposed fairly radical measures for the restructuring of the industry. The industry does need to be restructured. Farmers say to us "We want to see the industry restructured" because they know that by having the industry restructured they will find a better way, they will become more economically successful and they will become much more successful and productive. It was wrong for those words to be used in any way to batter the Assembly when reports are being debated today which propose the very things that he says are missing from the Assembly.
We also need some clarity from the Department. On 7 September last year the Minister wrote that she had very real reservations about the value of pursuing the course of bringing in producer co-operatives which the Committee was then considering; yet on 22 February she welcomed that proposal. I am glad that the Minister has welcomed that proposal and indeed is taking some credit for it. I do not really care who gets the credit, but what I want to see is clarity on policy, and the farming community, the consumer and indeed everyone in the food production chain want to see clarity from the Government.
I shall deal very briefly with the pigs report. We hoped that the pig outgoers scheme would be helpful to pig producers. Indeed, we encouraged farmers who wanted to take that drastic step and get out of the pig industry to apply for the pig outgoers scheme. I understand that up to maybe 500 people in Northern Ireland in pig production made applications under the pig outgoers scheme, and I am alarmed to learn that fewer than 100 of them were accepted by the scheme in the first round.
People are desperate to restructure their industry. However, they are playing cricket only to find that everyone else is playing rugby. It is wrong that people are riding roughshod over them. The Department must get a handle on that to ensure that Northern Ireland farmers get a fair deal. It must take the lead on restructuring so that in the future —

Sir John Gorman: Mr Paisley, your time is up.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: We can say that we delivered profits to pig and beef producers.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I also welcome the regionalisation status that we have been granted. However, the Newry and Mourne area may find itself locked into the exclusion zone, and Departments should do all they can to help not only the tourism industry there but also other interests that could be affected.
For some time we have been asking for regionalisation in relation to BSE, and given that this has now been granted for foot-and-mouth disease, the argument could be made to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the European Commission that we are also entitled to BSE regionalisation. We have been locked into a negative situation for a long time because of foot-and-mouth disease and BSE, and markets must be opened up.
I accept the points that were made about the article in the ‘News Letter’ at the weekend. The views of people outside the industry can be challenging, especially when Alex Kane says that the Committee is simply a lobby group. Part of our remit is to lobby on behalf of farmers and others but the article was wrong to say that this was all we do. The points he made are unproven and unsubstantiated.
We have already discussed the reports on the beef and pig industries, and their findings still stand. The problems of both industries are similar, as are the reasons for their non-profitability. These issues will have to be dealt with in the months and years to come. Tony Blair has said that livestock production must be approached in a different way. There must be a full overview of the industry, and whether or not this is done on an all-Ireland basis, we must ensure that we do not face this same situation in one year’s time or 10 years’ time. We could eradicate foot-and-mouth disease now, but under the present regulations it could return in six months’ time because almost anything can be imported from the countries we deal with.
The reports make several recommendations that should be followed through. I strongly urge the Minister to put those recommendations into practice.
In the Committee’s evidence sessions we tried to get to grips with the reasons for finding ourselves in this situation: sterling, the BSE crisis, the loss of markets (which continue to deteriorate), the fire at Malton’s pig plant in Ballymoney, the processors, and the power that supermarkets have beyond the farm gate.
Foot-and-mouth disease has an impact beyond the agriculture industry. Shares dropped and the economic growth of the South will fall by 2% next year. In what is a multi-billion pound industry, talk is of billions being lost. However, farmers ask themselves "What billions are being lost?" They are certainly not making billions. The problem is that people outside farming have made the money. They have gained most from what is a very profitable industry. The problem is that the industry is for those outside the farm gate. That is where our problem lies. We have to get to the stage at which everybody in the industry makes a return and has a fair future. If we do not, the whole industry will fall apart and we might as well do as Alex Kane seems to say: hand it over to big landlords and do away with small farming families. From his article, that appears to be the only option.
There are many stakeholders in the industry, including the bodies that deal with it. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is one with a major role to play. Groups such as the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC), the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters’ Association (NIMEA) and others also have a role to play. From the evidence sessions, we learned from some of those groups that problems exist to do with price-fixing by cartels. Allegations were made, as yet unsubstantiated, but many farmers believe that that is one of the major reasons for their finding themselves in such difficulties over the years, leaving aside BSE and the current foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Difficulties in making a profit have existed for decades, and for the same reasons. A farmer is an individual who has to work on his own, having been isolated by those all-powerful bodies who have control over the budget and over how they treat farmers. Farmers told the Committee that they are all working towards producing a quality product. We cannot have a quality product unless it is paid for at the primary producer end, which has never happened to any great degree. Farmers are manipulated through grading, and money is kept from them in other ways as they strive to produce a quality product.
If we are going to change the entire agriculture industry we will have to act on the recommendations of the reports. We must not allow them simply to gather dust because they are as relevant now as they were in the past number of months.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I endorse many of the comments that have been made in the debate. Many factors are affecting our farming industry, and in the reports the Committee has sought to address the issues that are pertinent to the profitability of beef and pig producers — two of our main farm sectors that have been beset by problems over the past five years. A widely recognised point that I take from the report is that processors of red meat have never made more profit than they have done since the BSE crisis struck. They have used various excuses to cover their practices of offering low prices to producers while charging high prices to butchers and, hence, the consumers. LMC livestock figures show that the difference between what a supermarket charges for a bullock and what a farmer receives at the farm gate is £635. That is hard to believe. The consumer cost is 238% higher than the amount the primary producer is paid. Consider the timescale of production for a farmer of two years’ keep for an animal against a timescale of approximately two weeks for the meat processor and supermarket. That equates to a farmer’s receiving 63p per day while a processor and a supermarket gets £45·35 per day for their efforts.
In the report, the re-establishment of niche markets in Europe is recommended. That I would also highly endorse, as many of the beef industry’s problems stem from a reliance on UK supermarket trade alone and the power that those giants wield. I quote from the report:
"The best of Northern Ireland’s grass-fed steer beef stands comparison with any competing product in terms of farm quality, traceability, hygiene, service and eating quality."
However, there does not appear to be enough of that product at the top end of the market, and that is due to various factors. Many producers would say that the grading standards have tightened, and they often appear to be correct in those assumptions. Nevertheless, other factors have a detrimental effect on beef quality, such as — and this is a bit rich, coming from a dairy farmer — the high percentage of dairy cows in the Province, which influences the grading quality. That is something that must be addressed.
Secondly, there is a lack of price incentives and encouragement for the beef producer to produce better quality. Perhaps the most important factor is the subsidy system, which does nothing to encourage quality but only promotes quantity. I do not blame the farmers here. They are out to make a profit and they will do anything they can to produce the meat necessary to make a profit. However, something needs to be done here; something needs to be tweaked a little to encourage quality. On that subject, I welcome the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has proposed a beef quality initiative. I look forward to its implementation at ground level.
The pig industry is having similar problems to the beef industry, with producer fragmentation and with large processors and supermarkets calling the shots. The report has recognised the need for strong producer groups in the pig sector. The United Pig Producers’ Co-operative (UPP) tried to address the problem but processors actively encouraged people not to get involved. They discouraged farmers from joining and tried to strangle the venture in its infancy. The Department must address that type of action so that the producers have some say and power over their own destiny.
There is also the problem of the weakness of the euro resulting in the sucking-in of inferior products from Europe because of lower prices. We have a situation whereby our industry is regulated like no other in the world and, as usual, the producer has to pay. We had unilateral action by the UK Government to ban stalls and tethers seven years before the rest of Europe, with no compensation given to the farmers affected. A ban on meat and bonemeal was imposed, at a cost of £5·26 per pig, also with no compensation.
Countries exporting to Northern Ireland must meet the same specifications imposed on our producers or face the consequences of their product being banned from the UK until they meet our standards of health and animal welfare. Our producers only want a level playing field and a fair market for their product. Give them that and they will produce the food as efficiently as they do now, but the difference will be that they will receive proper recompense for their efforts.
We must also have a responsive Department, especially with reference to the implementation of assistance schemes such as the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. That scheme was introduced on 30 March 2000, but to date has not produced any revenue for pig producers or for those who have had to leave the pig industry. Ian Paisley Jnr referred the fact that a very small number of people have been received into this scheme to date. This is highly unacceptable because this scheme was put in place to help those who went out of business. Many are down hundreds of thousands of pounds with no comeback whatsoever. Many people from my constituency phoned me last night and none of them has been received into the scheme. Instead, they have been asked to reapply. Some had submitted very small bids and find it difficult to understand why they have not been offered any finance.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to heed the recommendations of the report and act on them. Most of them do not cost a great deal of money but require the Department to go that extra mile to lobby for the beef farmer and the pig farmer. I support the motion.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also welcome the fact that the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development is present to reply to what is said. I welcome the two reports on restoring profit to the agriculture industry. This debate is most timely, especially considering the problem of profitability.
Our agriculture industry is going from crisis to crisis, and those involved in farming are getting deeper and deeper into debt. The farming industry has been under threat for some time. The BSE crisis, the strong pound, deep distrust of the pricing practices of processors and supermarkets, and now, of course, the dreadful foot-and-mouth emergency have all contributed to that.
If actions are not taken, the producer base in Northern Ireland will fragment and disintegrate. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should play its part in helping to stabilise the agriculture industry by encouraging and facilitating better communication and co-operation among all levels of the supply chain. The recommendation that the Department should work with the farmers to secure an equitable price for their pigs and beef is one towards which we should work.
Northern Ireland is at the bottom of the United Kingdom price league. That inequality is unacceptable. I also welcome and support the recommendations to create producer/processor partnerships in order to look at and serve market trends. It is important that quality produce receive a fair price for everyone involved.
Improvements were mentioned in the beef producer report. The recommendations do point out the difficulty that the beef producer has had with regard to incentives for producing beef. The Department should look at, and perhaps instigate, an overall strategy to obtain better herd quality as a matter of urgency.
I have spoken about branding before, and it is also mentioned in the beef producer report. Image and brand are both very important in the competitive market. Northern Ireland beef and pork are second to none. Consumers in the United Kingdom and Europe should be able to easily recognise that they are buying a product form Northern Ireland. A brand should be promoted and protected, with DARD taking a lead in partnership with the producers and the processors.
The problem of debt is also important. Point 13 in the executive summary of ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ says
"These factors are not helped by the current climate of suspicion and allegation, with primary producers concerned that they are unequal partners in an other wise profitable business".
We must ask for that to be addressed.
The financial assistance is needed not only to help our farmers to overcome the debt, but it must be structured to take into account a long-term strategy that will allow farmers and their families to survive and make their farms profitable and secure for future generations. Fianancial assistance is also needed to make sure that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged compared with the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe.
In October 1998 I spoke about the problems of pig producers. Very little has changed since then, and little help has been offered.
In conclusion, I support the report’s recommendations. I encourage Northern Irish consumers to make sure that the produce and the products that they buy in the markets and supermarkets are really produced here. The future of the Northern Irish agriculture industry is at stake. I support the motion.

Mr John Dallat: I too support the report. It demonstrates agreement between various groups with a common interest in restoring profitability to the farming industry. Indeed, we are all grateful for the contributions made and do not dismiss any of them out of hand. We must give very careful consideration to what has been said by all the groups, not least the farming unions.
The principal causes of crisis in the farming industry are well established, so they do not need to be repeated. In addition to the BSE problem, there were the problems of currency exchange rates, cheap imports and the loss in the value of direct EU payments. Those are all well documented in the report. The current grading structures in particular have come in for criticism, and that criticism is well justified. The issue will rumble on because there is an urgent need to make fundamental changes if the farmers are to be given a fair price for their products. There is a widespread belief among farmers at the moment that they are being cheated and that belief must be addressed.
According to the report, there is a view that the farming industry is too vulnerable to the might of those who influence and control the retail market — the meat processing plants and the large supermarket chains. The supermarkets are so powerful that farmers are frightened to offer criticism in case they lose everything. That situation is unacceptable in a modern society.
Farmers are encouraged to offer a constant supply of top-class products to the processing companies, but there are no tangible benefits to the producers for doing that. That issue cannot be dismissed as being the result of the normal effects of market forces. During the gathering of evidence there was a useful dialogue on how the farming industry might overcome some of the powers of those who control so much of its livelihood at the moment.
The concept of co-operatives emerged time and again and was mentioned earlier by the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee George Savage and others. That must be pursued, and I welcome the agreement of the Department to assist and encourage the movement towards co-operatives. I fully accept that it is not a direct responsibility of the Department but of the farming industry to set up the co-operatives or control them. However, it is not feasible for farmers to do that without a great deal of support, including financial support in the early years.
The Department has the expertise to influence the emergence of successful co-operatives that will not suffer from the weakness of previous models. In the past, the emergence of co-operatives broke the stranglehold of the gombeen men and that success can be repeated. In the recent Programme for Government, resources were set aside for education and training in the agriculture industry. Those resources are fundamental for equipping young people with the education and skills needed to tackle new concepts in marketing to deal with the current crisis.
Both farming organisations support the co-operative ideal and have indicated that they will support the development of such worthy principles. The Ulster Farmers’ Union put forward constructive suggestions for the development of co-operatives. Those are worth examining and are detailed in the report. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association gave evidence and also supported the concept of co-operation. It highlighted mistakes of the past but offered full co-operation, and that is very welcome.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development emphasised in its submission that any new producer co-operative would need to be involved in processing and marketing as well as in selling primary produce. It cautioned about the massive investment needed and the risk of duplication. However, we cannot leave the industry to the monopoly of the large combines or allow opportunities for cartels that have the capacity to wipe out the industry.
We can learn from the past so that we can chart a new future that offers the hope of new prosperity based on sound financial principles. There is now a unique opportunity to move forward in partnership. For the first time there is a devolved Assembly that has the power to call witnesses, scrutinise the work of the Department and question the Minister on all aspects of her work.
The new dawn of democracy could not have come at a better time, and the new Minister could not be more helpful in her willingness to assist with change. The farming industry, in this time of crisis, is aware that this is a time for solidarity among all interested parties. They will thank no one who exploits their situation or attempts to make political capital of them. They are watching carefully and are determined that they will not be used by politicians, some of whom have never cultivated so much as a window box.
Time has not permitted me to deal with the pig industry in particular, but that does not indicate a lack of interest. The pig industry, like the beef industry, has a future. However, it must not be left to the control of market forces or the producers will become the victims of exploitation once again. I support the report.

Mr Edwin Poots: I would like to address two points in the report. The first of those is recommendation 2, which states:
"The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should press the United Kingdom Government to introduce a ban on imports of foreign beef that presents a threat to the local agricultural industry and a risk to consumers."
In recent weeks and months we have seen evidence of the risk that that poses to the industry and to consumers. The crisis that we are in today is the result of cheap imports into the United Kingdom. Cheaply imported pork and chicken products from the Far East that are used in the United Kingdom can enter the animal food chain through pigswill.
There have been several other instances when food of a lesser quality was imported to the United Kingdom, put on supermarket shelves alongside United Kingdom products, and used to keep the price of food down. The cheap food policy has not proven to be good for the industry or for consumers. We are in a crisis. Animals throughout the United Kingdom are being slaughtered because of the cheap food policy. That issue must be addressed.
If food is imported, farmers in the United Kingdom should face equal and fair competition. That competition should not come from people who are not applying the same standards to food production as those rightly expected by consumers in the United Kingdom. Both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health — who has a role in this through the Food Standards Agency — should ensure that all food meets the high standards that are expected of Northern Ireland farmers. We have seen the meat plants and the different companies taking the opportunity, on too many occasions, to drive down the price of primary produce in Northern Ireland by introducing cheaper imports. That must stop; it is bad for the consumer, the farmer and the industry.
Recommendation 11 states that processors should
"alter their pricing policies to offer stronger incentives in favour of selling carcasses with a higher value within an overall price regime that is commercially viable to both buyer and seller."
That issue must be addressed. For many years now Northern Ireland has had a pricing regime based on what the meat plants actually want. Butchers are asking why they must pay certain prices for R grade animals. Farmers are expected to produce U grade and E grade animals. Butchers are not receiving those grades, yet they must pay the price that is expected for that animal. The farmers are not receiving the higher price; the butchers are not paying the lower price; but the processors in the middle are making a handsome profit.
It has not gone unnoticed that since BSE came into the equation about five years ago, farmers incomes have slumped, but at the same time the meat processors’ incomes have rocketed. Why has that happened? One of the key reasons is that farmers no longer have the ability to export live cattle; they can only export cattle that have been slaughtered.
There are five meat-processing companies in Northern Ireland. They own nine meat plants. They are strong companies that dominate the market. Almost all their supplies go to supermarkets throughout the United Kingdom. The problem is that the farmer has no means of pushing up his prices. The livestock markets cannot be used in the way that they were used pre-BSE because buyers from the Irish Republic are not coming to Northern Ireland to buy live cattle and thus provide some balance to the market. The balance has disappeared from the market since BSE arrived five years ago. That has left the processors in an advantageous position, to the detriment of the agricultural community.
I welcome this report and the report on the pig producers. I hope that we shall soon see profitable times for beef and pig producers in Northern Ireland once again. The work that the Committee has done has been useful, unlike the comments that were made in the ‘News Letter’ on Saturday by Mr Alex Kane.
The Assembly should take the opportunity to try to restore agriculture to its position as a dominant industry in Northern Ireland. What has helped the Irish Republic in the past few years is that it has shown a greater level of support for its agriculture industry than we have shown ours. In that case, we should learn from what has happened in the Irish Republic. Grants have been made available to farmers so that they can improve the way in which they produce their food.
The Minister would do well to take account of some of the measures taken there, rather than take policy directly from Westminster on each and every occasion. We have a devolved Administration and finance of our own. We should be looking at how to spend that money, and not necessarily at following the line taken in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I congratulate the Committee on presenting the report. I hope that it leads to better days for the agriculture industry.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I support the motion and welcome the announcement on regionalisation. I hope that it will be a major step forward for agriculture and trust that the Minister will use her skills to regionalise Newry and Mourne district when everything in that area becomes foolproof. We hope that that will be sooner rather than later.
In compiling the report, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee took evidence from all quarters of the industry. I am certain that everything possible was done to work through what are complex and multiple problems. However, it is not in the Committee’s remit to call for direct intervention into market arrangements. Many producers and farmers in the Province may feel that that is the only course of action to take to stem the huge losses the industry has endured over the past five years.
I know of no measures that will promote co-operation between farmers and processors in the immediate future. It is insulting to call on producers actively to seek co-operation with processors because of the current distrust that is a result of processors’ greed and opportunism. It is up to processors to rebuild trust, for it was they who undermined it in the first place and who have continually undermined it since. If processors have a reliable and wholesome Northern Ireland product to market, they should show appreciation of its value by allowing an adequate return to the producers who made that possible.
The beef quality initiative is a step towards improving Northern Ireland’s herd quality. Moreover, strongly branded Northern Ireland produce would be an effective marketing tool. The Northern Ireland farm quality assurance scheme has its merits, but it will only be of value if implemented by the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) in a way that does not leave it open to abuse. There must be no opportunity for mixing and matching product or for "product substitution". To that end the LMC has complete responsibility and must exercise its authority over what is its scheme, otherwise the exercise is nonsensical and its objective will be completely undermined.
Although the report is extensive and considers many opinions, at best it can only touch on some of the current problems. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must constantly consider its obligations to the farmers and should ensure that its policy does not deliver the dividends to those who least deserve them. The encouragement, promotion and development of farming in the Province must be given higher priority. Farming underpins much of what makes Northern Ireland the place that it is. The report is just one step in the furlongs towards achieving that goal. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome this opportunity for Northern Ireland to export some of its produce again to the wider world market. That will restore the confidence that our farming community needs, but our farmers face many more problems. The report relays the need for the agriculture industry to open up new markets and to ensure healthy living and competition to exploit the superior quality of Northern Ireland produce. The current exchange rate greatly reduces those opportunities.
It was also pointed out that consumers have much more power than the farmers, and it is suspected that processors dictate the price. The Department cannot afford to be a mere spectator on this matter; it needs to take the lead. I do not say that the Department does not lead, but more leadership would be helpful to our farmers, who would appreciate such support. Our farmers need a good deal of support. For example, branding would allow consumers to offer more loyalty to Northern Ireland produce. We need more help on that.
We all know that farmers should look beyond their present difficulties and become more positive, but that can only happen if they are given a level playing field. More trust between the producers and the processors is necessary. That will bring profit to the farmers, and result in more profitability to our Province.
I welcome the report and support it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I notice that, although the Chairperson of the Committee had a prop, I do not have one. I wonder whether we have swapped places, or is it simply an oversight?
I shall begin by placing on record the fact that I welcome the two reports from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development that we are debating here today. I apologise to Mr Bradley, in particular, for my absence during his speech. I thank him for his understanding of the fact that I was not able to be here and for the kind remarks that he made. I also apologise to Dr Paisley for not being present for the first part of his speech. I am told that he did not show quite the same understanding as Mr Bradley, but that is hardly surprising.
The pig and beef sectors are an important part of the industry because they represent 35% of the gross output of the agriculture sector and provide significant employment on farms and in processing. Both have faced significant difficulties in recent years. The loss of our export markets for beef after March 1996 meant that the industry had to refocus on the Great Britain market. Several of our local processors have built up a substantial trade with the Great Britain retail multiples. However, the Great Britain beef market is extremely competitive, and the strength of sterling has made it attractive for many countries to send beef there. The result has been a drop in prices for our beef producers.
In the pig sector the downturn in the production cycle, the strength of sterling, and the consequences of the fire at Ballymoney combined to create the effect that for several years, pig producers were making a loss, and in many cases a substantial loss. At present, both sectors are living with the difficulties caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have already detailed to the Assembly the actions that have been taken to control the outbreak and to deal with the trading implications. I do not propose to repeat what I have said here before. Although there has been some increase in prices for both finished cattle and pigs as a consequence of the disruption to supplies in Britain, the situation remains so uncertain that we cannot confidently predict what it will be in the long term. I repeat that it is clearly in the best interest of all sectors that we continue to apply stringent measures to deal with the outbreak.
Much of the content of the Committee’s reports, and of what has been said today, relates to the longer-term future of these sectors. I want to concentrate on those issues. First, I shall respond to Dr Paisley, Mrs Carson, Mr Armstrong and others on the issue of branding. I note the support for branding, especially of beef, but I must make it clear that I have an open mind on this. It is not a simple matter. It requires careful consideration and full commitment from all parts of the industry if it is to work. I am pleased that the LMC has commissioned a study on the scope for branding Northern Ireland red meat. That is to be completed by early summer, and I look forward to the outcome. The LMC’s study is being funded from the money allocated to it for red meat marketing.
Great emphasis has rightly been put on the relaxation of the BSE beef export restrictions. The Assembly will be aware of strenuous efforts, both on my part and that of my officials, to secure a relaxation. It was extremely frustrating that, just when we were ready to lodge a formal bid with the European Commission, BSE-related food scares once again surfaced in Europe, producing a political climate that would have been extremely prejudicial to our bid. Since then we have had the results of the survey of casualty slaughtered cattle aged over 30 months. That survey indicated a much higher incidence of BSE in those animals, including the Northern Ireland herd, than was previously thought. All member states are now undertaking their own surveys in accordance with EU requirements. Once the results of those surveys are known — and it may be some months yet — we shall be in a better position to take forward the case for relaxation of restrictions on our beef exports.
I can assure the Assembly that I am fully committed to that cause and will be pressing for relaxation of the export restrictions. Some people have called for a ban on beef imports. I can only impose such a ban if there is a threat to the health status of the domestic beef herd. Although I did impose a ban on trade with GB because of foot-and-mouth disease, I cannot ban imports from other countries unless clear evidence of a threat exists. Whether beef imports from any country represent a risk to human health is a matter for the Food Standards Agency and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Hitherto, the Food Standards Agency has not recommended any such ban.
I now turn to the need to improve the marketing strength of producers — a theme common to both reports. I am firmly convinced of the need for effective partnerships among all parts of the supply chain in both sectors. A partnership approach among the different interests, acting in conjunction with Government, is the only viable way forward. Although I recognise the need for producers to improve their marketing position, that should be done in conjunction with processors and retailers, not in isolation from them.
The emphasis should be on strengthening the vertical links in the supply chains, building on the existing work taking place and building on the support mechanisms of both a technical and financial nature that are available. That requires collaboration and co-operation, not confrontation. It is not for Government to impose solutions on the industry. Business dealings in the supply chain must be governed by commercial considerations and driven by market needs.
Mr Paisley Jnr said that I had reservations about producer co-operatives. My reservations are based on the experience of some producer co-operatives whose plans backfired because, at the end of the day, those who took their produce could find other sources of supply. My Department and I can help the different sectors in developing whatever solutions are appropriate to their circumstances, be they formal co-operatives or other arrangements. Indeed, we have done that in the past and will do it in future.
I firmly believe that the long-term interests of the beef industry lie in a broadly based marketing strategy, targeting those markets — be they in Great Britain or elsewhere — that are capable of ensuring that a premium price is paid for Northern Irish beef. That is why support has been provided to the industry in developing the red meat marketing strategy. The strategy was developed by all parts of the industry and the relevant Departments. An important part of that strategy is a focus on premium markets capable of providing a premium return for our beef.
However, we need to produce top quality cattle for those markets. It is well established that there has been a decline in the quality of finished cattle. I have secured £2 million per year in the Programme for Government to reverse that trend, and I welcome the fact that Members have referred to that today. Details of the proposed measures have been provided to Committee members, and I was please to note that they have also supported them. The measures will be introduced as soon as state-aid approval has been obtained.
Much has been said about producers getting a rough deal from processors. I deplore any exploitation of one part of the food chain by another. As a public representative, I hear just as much about it as other Members. If it were proved that that was happening, I would push for strong action to be taken. The Office of Fair Trading examined the alleged existence of a beef cartel and found insufficient evidence on which to undertake a formal investigation. Although the differential in beef prices between Northern Ireland and Britain has narrowed in recent months, there are still concerns about the prices that Northern Ireland farmers receive for their cattle. I have decided to commission an independent study of the differential. The Committee recommended that I do that, and the move is supported by producers and processors. I hope that Members will recognise that, in responding positively to that proposal, I am making it clear that I am open to constructive and helpful suggestions from the Committee or from any other quarter.
I do not pretend that my Department or I have a monopoly on wisdom. In this devolved democratic institution, in which we all participate, all ideas are welcome. I shall would not be right to proceed with the investigation now, until the current difficulties with foot-and-mouth disease have eased. That said, I remain committed to ensuring that the study takes place.
I am acutely aware of the importance of making prompt direct payments to farmers to help with cash flow, especially in the current circumstances. Everything possible is being done to expedite all grant and subsidy payments. In the coming weeks, we shall make all the balance payments for this year’s livestock schemes, as well as the payments under the new less-favoured area compensatory allowance scheme and the additional agrimonetary compensation. In total, those payments will be worth £55 million to local farmers.
I can assure the Assembly that representatives of the pig industry made me aware of the problems that they face from the minute that I took up my post as Minister. It is a matter of some regret, however, that I have not been able to convince the pig producers that my scope to offer them cash help is almost non-existent. I can truthfully say that I explored every suggestion put to me on the matter but found insurmountable obstacles to all of them.
Some of the issues covered in the report, such as the pig welfare disposal scheme, relate to the period before devolution, and it is not for me to explain or defend them. However, on numerous occasions, I have reminded MAFF Ministers of the plight of our pig producers and have pressed them to devise the pig industry restructuring scheme and obtain EU clearance for it. I was disappointed to read a suggestion in the Committee report that I was in some way to blame for the European Commission’s tardiness in approving the scheme. I accept responsibility for my actions, but I am not prepared to accept responsibility for the operations of the European Commission. I know that the pig industry restructuring scheme is seen by some as a case of too little, too late. I am afraid that it is the only show in town, and our job is to see that Northern Ireland’s pig producers derive maximum benefit from it.
I have noted Mr Paisley Jnr’s comments about the pig industry outgoers scheme. That scheme, as we have said from the beginning, is a UK-wide scheme. It was based on a tendering exercise, therefore the lowest tenders were accepted. The unfortunate result of that was that, on the face of it, Northern Ireland appeared to have received less than its full share. However, Northern Ireland did get its fair share on a pro-rata basis of sow numbers. I have already taken the opportunity at a recent ministerial meeting in London to make the point to Nick Brown — in view of the fact that there is now to be an extended outgoers scheme — that, although we may have got pro rata on the basis of sow numbers, we did not get pro rata in relation to our problem, which is a much bigger, deeper and difficult one than that faced by the rest of the UK’s pig producers. Mr Brown was sympathetic to that view and made it clear that in the next tranche he will endeavour to see whether there are any methods compatible with the scheme that can be used to help us in that area.
I am aware of the concern of many in the industry that the marketing of Northern Ireland pigs must be improved. I am pleased to announce that after protracted consideration by EU authorities we have obtained approval to spend £400,000 to further support the pig industry’s marketing effort. That money will be used primarily to promote pig meat in Northern Ireland, but will also be applied to help develop quality pig meat and improve the structures used to market pigs. Those were the priority areas for action as agreed with the pig sector. Officials will soon discuss with the industry the detailed arrangements of how to spend that money. I must say that the less direct forms of financial and non-financial assistance that my Department provides for pig producers tends to be dismissed too readily.
As I stated in my written response to the Committee’s report, my Department has spent a great deal of time and effort on counselling and advising pig producers throughout the past three years. We have allocated a significant amount of money to support marketing initiatives and to working with producers to enhance co-operation and collaboration. We have done what we can to encourage the local uptake of Northern Ireland pig meat. Indeed, last year we also consulted with the Department for Social Development. That Department and my officials have worked hard to advise and facilitate pig farmers, who are not used to dealing with social security. The aim is to make it easier for them to access their entitlements in a situation in which they are losing money and in difficult financial circumstances. However, short of acting illegally by giving cash subsidies to pig producers, there is simply nothing more that my Department or I could have done to help. It is a sad fact that it has taken the foot-and-mouth disease crisis to force the Northern Ireland pig meat price over the £1 per kilogram level for the first time.
I understand that during my absence from the Chamber Mr Bradley expressed concern about our inability here to put certain things on labels. Existing EU rules constrain what can be put on meat labels. However, there is scope for some flexibility, and I am willing to work with the industry — [Interruption]

Sir John Gorman: Will the people in the Gallery please stop talking.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am willing to work with the industry to explore how this can be used the industry’s benefit. In particular, the rules on beef labelling should allow Northern Ireland beef to be clearly identified for the consumer. However, the UK mark must also be displayed.
By the way, I welcome Mr Poots’s remarks. It was refreshing to hear an unbiased and honest opinion from someone whose political views I totally respect and understand. I do not expect that those views will have changed, but nevertheless he was prepared to give credit where credit was due to the Republic. He also recognised that our devolved Administration have made and are making a difference, especially in the agriculture sector.
Finally, I shall deal with those who have said that the Department and I are not doing enough for those sectors. I am not clear as to what other action they have in mind beyond the range of activities on education, training, research, technology transfer, marketing assistance, disease control, animal welfare, traceability and the implementation of the livestock subsidy arrangements. All those are currently taking place.
However, I assure the Assembly that my Department and I shall continue with our efforts to assist in the development of the beef and pig sectors and the rest of the industry. I am committed to that and will remain so as long as I am Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I regret that I have not got more time to deal with some of the matters that have been raised. The fishermen who made some noise entering the Gallery are seated, Mr Deputy Speaker, and they even come from your bailiwick, so do not be hard on them. They have enough hardship already without you turning on them.
There is one matter that I view very gravely. Neither my office nor the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee’s office received the Minister’s statement on pigs. However, in a section of the report, the Minister makes the claim that Malton Foods received "considerable Government assistance". In a recent letter to me she stated
"I cannot speak for the whole of Government, of course, but as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I would like to record formally that neither IDB nor DARD has given any direct financial assistance to Malton at any time."
I know the whole story about Malton Foods; it is in my constituency. I was called in by the directors of Malton Foods after the fire. I also had talks with Mr Peter Small, the Department’s permanent secretary. I ask the Minister why she stated "any direct financial assistance". Everybody knows — even the dogs in the street know — about the deal that was done in Cookstown and the amount of money that the owner of the Cookstown plant took when he agreed to enable Malton Foods to take it over. Malton Foods would not have been in possession of the Cookstown plant if that deal had not been done. I was involved at that time.
Nobody knows to this day how much money was given to the owner of the Cookstown plant. There should now be an inquiry to find out how much Government money was handed to the owner of that plant to make it acceptable for Malton Foods to obtain that factory. It does not matter whether the money was paid directly or indirectly. The letter referred to "considerable Government assistance", and there certainly was such assistance. I resent the Minister’s coming today and referring to a letter that we did not receive with that statement in it, because that is not being utterly transparent. Everybody knows that a deal was done to get the Cookstown factory into the charge of Malton Foods.
Today we have a report, produced by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, that has the voices of all sides on it. It was resolved by the Committee unamiously, and it was the Committee that drew up this motion. I did not draw up the motion. I am sick, sore and tired of hearing people say, "Oh, that is Paisley’s doing." My business is to chair the Committee, and I have never heard anyone — even my political opponents — say that I have given them a raw deal from the Chair. They all admit that I call them carefully. I call some of them prayerfully, but I do call them all.
Today the Minister has been talking about defending herself and her Department. This debate is not an attack on the Minister or the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is an attack on those responsible people who still do not realise that farmers are in a catastrophe. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials must remember that we are dealing with a catastrophe, but I fail to see recognition of the seriousness of the matter when I talk to them. A whole section of agriculture is going out of business. The situation is the same as that facing the fishermen. I met the Minister this morning and she knows that she told me that she could do nothing for them. It seems that nothing can be done for pig producers or farmers.
I do not understand why French farmers and French pig farmers can get money into their pockets, or why farmers in the South of Ireland got money into their pockets when they got their deal. However, Northern Ireland had a welfare scheme and the Department kept trying to bluff people by saying that it would be good for the pig farmers.
Northern Ireland now has the outgoers scheme, and I noticed that the Minister did not challenge what my son, Mr Paisley Jnr, said in the House about the numbers involved in it. What good is that scheme to the agriculture industry if 500 farmers apply and not even 100 are successful? What good is it if the remaining farmers are told to reapply?
Northern Ireland’s situation is different because our pig farmers faced the burning of Malton’s. Pig farmers across the water did not have to face that. The pig producers’ main factory was destroyed and that put them in a grave situation. Why was that not taken into account when the outgoer scheme was planned for Northern Ireland? Special consideration should have been given because of the difference between Northern Ireland pig farmers, whose main processing factory was burned down, and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Special provision should have been made, but it was not. Therefore, pig farmers have great anxieties. They are being told that there is an outgoers scheme. However, when they apply for it, it can give them nothing. What can they do?
There must be something wrong with the system when beef and pig processors are doing exceptionally well while beef and pig producers are going out of business. There was a time when pig producing was the strongest part of intensive farming in Northern Ireland. Those farmers are now going out of business while the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development says that its hands are tied.
There are doors in Europe that we are told are closed. It is funny that when one hammers on those doors they tend to open. A statement has come from Europe a few hours ago saying that if it can help with tying up the boats it would be prepared to look at that. That is an amazing statement.
It is about time we stood at the door and hammered on it until it opens. It has opened for many other countries that have breached European law more than Northern Ireland ever has. European law is monitored and policed in the United Kingdom like no other place in the European Union. The time has come when the House must say forcibly to Europe — and the Minister must take the message to Europe — that the door must be opened. If it is not opened people are going to lose out and there will be no way back. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee wants a way back for pig farmers and beef producers. We want a way back for NorthernIreland agriculture, it must not die. We must get oxygen into it and keep it alive until this serious situation is over.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly accepts and endorses the findings and recommendations contained in the two reports published by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development — ‘Restoring Profit for the Beef Producer’ (2/00/R) and ‘Restoring Profit for the Pig Producer’ (3/00/R) — and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (and others involved in the beef and pig sectors) to take all necessary steps to implement the recommendations.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Port of Belfast

Ms Jane Morrice: Is the motion on the port of Belfast moved or not moved?

Mr Alban Maginness: Not moved.
Motion not moved.

Mr Sean Neeson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for what is a very serious motion not to be moved without a reason being given to Members?

Ms Jane Morrice: It is perfectly in order for a Member to withdraw a motion in his name.

Fishing Industry

Mr Jim Shannon: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to provide short-term financial assistance for the fishing industry due to the restriction coming from the cod recovery programme.
The issue is very important to my constituency of Strangford, as well as to south Down and the villages of Portavogie, Ardglass, Kilkeel and many others. The debate on the agriculture industry was very important because that industry is also in the throes of a crisis. We understand that its strength will be weakened and undermined, and we must commend the measures taken to try to restrict the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Unfortunately, that crisis has eclipsed other problems in NorthernIreland, such as those that the fishing industry faces.
For a long time, people involved in the NorthernIreland fishing industry have been made to feel like the farmers’ poor relations. It is not a matter of "them and us", but the fishing industry does feel like a second-class citizen within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That is not simply the fishermen’s perception. The Government have continually refused to listen to the views and concerns of fishermen and of spokesmen from that sector. They have been forced to watch as the Government consistently fail to give fair and equal representation at national and European level.
Since the day and hour that the common fisheries policy was created in Brussels in 1983, we have witnessed the piece-by-piece destruction of the fishing industry, with year-on-year reductions in the amount of produce our fishermen are allowed to land. Several fishermen are in the Gallery today.
The number of adult fish that live on the seabed has fallen by 90% since the early 1970s, yet Europe refuses to acknowledge the fatal repercussions of legislation that it has enforced. Between 1999 and 2000, the value of fish landed at Ardglass fell by £1·2 million. That represents a 30% decrease. In Kilkeel the figure fell by £2·5 million, which represents a 29% decrease. In Portavogie the figure fell by £1·5 million, which represents a 20% decline. Those are massive reductions in the three major ports.
While the Northern Irish fish sector continues to be strangled by such draconian legislation, other EU nations continue to rape United Kingdom waters. Fish from those waters are essential to the maintenance and growth of our own industry. That ill-thought-out policy has convincingly failed to deliver even one positive benefit to the fishing industry. If it is not scrapped, we shall witness the total extermination of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. It will send local communities and economies into freefall. Those of us who represent fishing areas — in my case, Portavogie — understand how legislation will affect the economy.
The latest gem to come out of Brussels — I shall not call it wisdom, because it is certainly not that — is the cod recovery plan. The second year of closures associated with the Irish Sea cod recovery plan commenced on 14 February 2001 and will last until 30 April 2001. As with last year’s closures, derogation has been permitted to allow a nephrop fishery to continue. In addition, a further derogation to allow a directed haddock fishery to be prosecuted in the Irish Sea was allowed between 14 February and 22 March this year.
As a result of last year’s closures, and as predicted by all those involved in the industry and their elected representatives, many trawlers that traditionally targeted cod off the County Down coast diverted their efforts to the north channel that falls within the west of Scotland waters.
The EU convened a meeting in Brussels on 13 February to discuss a cod recovery plan for the west of Scotland waters. That meeting resulted in the closure of the area fished by our trawlers in the north channel. The closure commenced last week and will continue until 30 April 2001. Next year it will run parallel with the Irish Sea closure. It is time for the Minister to wake up and smell the coffee, or in this case smell the fish.
Our white fish fleet has nowhereto go. Similar closures have been introduced in areas north of the west of Scotland waters. However, inshore waters have remained open, which allows inshore fishing by vessels similar to our fleet to continue. Closures in the Irish Sea are the only ones that extend right up to the beach. I hate to use a pun, but this is no red herring.
This is crunch time for our fishing industry, and the Government have failed abysmally to meet the demands of this very real and present danger. One option for our white fish fleet is to turn its attention to nephrop fishing, but that sector of the industry is also feeling the pinch from Europe. Frustration, anger and dismay are out there in great quantities.
There will be a 10% cut in the total allowable catch for the Irish Sea. First and foremost, that cut will inevitably lead to restrictions on those who work with nephrops, so there is no conceivable way that the fleet can be expanded by vessels from the redundant white fish fleet. Secondly, scientists have stated that the 10% cut in the nephrops catch will result in only a 2% recovery of cod. That is a truly insignificant figure when we put it into perspective. Nephrops account for more than 50% of all fish and shellfish caught by Northern Ireland vessels.
Taking into consideration the continuing policy of restricting other sectors of fishing, that part of the industry is becoming ever more important. Therefore, it is madness to even contemplate making cuts in this fishery at this time.
Meanwhile, the decommissioning scheme continues to fall flat on its face in its main objective of cushioning effects on the Irish Sea cod stock. When one witnesses the growing problems and further restrictions that are being implemented, it is clear that this school of thought is without foundation or integrity.
The next phase of the Northern Ireland decommissioning scheme has been wrapped up in EU bureaucracy since the end of last year — I have information that goes back to 1999, when the first commitment was given to it — while trawler owners are left on tenterhooks about their future, if in fact they have any future. The overwhelming irony of all this is that Brussels bureaucracy, which is currently delaying some £8 million to finance the scheme, is the same bureaucracy that has created and propagated the continuing crisis in fishing.
I understand that we shall have an announcement today about decommissioning. I am interested to hear how that will work. There has been no move to address the fact that up to 40% of this may be payable to the taxman through taxation on grant aid and the repayment of modernisation grant aid. It will be interesting to see exactly how it works. Our fishermen are still waiting to observe even the slightest indication that this scheme will save the cod fishery in the Irish Sea. Will it save it? That is a question that we ask the Minister.
Another issue that has not been satisfactorily addressed is light dues. Northern Ireland vessel owners pay £58,000 annually on light dues. That levy was initially imposed to cover the cost of navigational aids provided by lighthouses, and those are no longer used. It is especially frustrating that our fishermen have to continue to pay this levy while fishermen from the Republic of Ireland do not pay a single penny, as their Government make the payments. That shows commitment to the industry. Where is our Department’s commitment to fishing? Although the Minister has said that she will do what she can, the fishing industry is on its knees and needs serious help now: not next year, not the year after, but now, before the industry is confined to the annals of history.
As for the future of our white fish fleet, what must be done to alleviate the problems that are being experienced and to obtain commitments that something will be done? It is clear that an immediate and substantial financial package must be provided in order to secure even the short-term future of Northern Ireland’s white fish fleet. For example, 13 boats are currently tied up in Kilkeel because the crews cannot be paid, and that came before the restrictions that were added last week.
For those who choose that option, decommissioning may, in a small way, address the issue. However, there must be a commitment from Government that those who wish to remain active within the sector will be catered for. The right to fish is an issue. Fishermen want to catch fish, they want to be involved in the industry and to support their families and others who are involved in it.
In the past, Westminster has opposed the introduction of a tie-up scheme that would keep vessels in port. However, the fact is that the white fish fleet faces an enforced tie-up for no other reason than it has been provided with no other options. It has nothing left to do. We must also look at boats that are not involved in white fish fishing. This will affect them as well. What we are looking for today is financial assistance that will help everyone who is involved in the fishing industry, from A to Z.
Our Government have consistently failed to provide such essential assistance while the sovereign Governments of other EU member states have provided crucial finance to support their fishing fleets. We know who they are: Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Spain and the Republic of Ireland. They are all doing something for their fishing fleets, and because they are doing something their industries will survive.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has admitted that there are provisions in EU Regulations for the payment of compensation in such circumstances as those in which our fishing industry currently finds itself. The Minister says that it is not possible to implement such a scheme after a fishery has closed. The rest of Europe has already done something. Our Minister — here in our own devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland — has the power to do just that, and we ask her to do it. In fact, this particular aid package has been introduced following the closures associated with the North Sea cod recovery plan. That is what other countries are doing about that issue.
Can the Minister explain to me and my constituents — and those of South Down — exactly how she plans to address this problem? Why do the sovereign Governments of other EU states deem it necessary, while our Government refuse to accept the same responsibility? Our Government cannot expect to receive a sympathetic hearing when they refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of the crisis and take the necessary action that is urgently required if the industry is to be saved.
Individuals as well as fishing organisations have made written submissions to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and to the Minister outlining what is needed.
For example, throughout the period when boats are required to remain in port, all vessels affected — that is, each fishing boat — should receive a weekly subsidy. A percentage of that financial assistance should be used to compensate the fish-selling companies, the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority and the producer organisations for the loss in income that would be inevitable should vessels be forced to tie up.
The financial assistance would allow trawler owners to maintain the repayment of bank loans, insurance and equipment hire costs, as well as provide crew members with a weekly wage. It is vitally important that the crew members also be looked after through that package, because they are the backbone of the fishing industry.
During this period the fleet will be restricted to port. Training schemes should be developed and run when the fishery is closed. The Minister and ourselves are well aware of a training scheme that the Republic of Ireland runs for their fishermen. Indeed, a substantial sum of money is spent on that training, and we ask the Minister to respond today and assure us that a similar training scheme could be introduced here. The implementation of such measures would go a long way towards providing assistance for the recovery of fish stocks and would prevent the white fish fleet diverting to working with nephrops, thus avoiding any further pressure on those quotas. That would also encourage crew members to stay with the fleet. Many are already voting with their feet and leaving the industry. We are aware of that, and we cannot let it continue.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member agree that the proposals that he outlines are not options but are absolutely necessary? If they are not implemented, we face mass unemployment along the peninsula.

Mr Jim Shannon: That is a point that I ask the Minister to take on board. Those proposals are essential; they are not just ideas pulled out of a hat in the hope that she will consider perhaps one of the six. We ask the Minister to implement all six. If those long-term problems that the fishing industry has had to face are to be addressed, there is only one route that the Government can take. It is essential that whatever solution is found balances the need to maintain fish stocks with the continuing viability of a Northern Ireland fishing fleet — a fleet that wants to fish and that has the right to fish.
I suggest that the following action be taken to cement and bolster the Northern Ireland fishing industry. We must strive to ensure that the weight and importance of the fishing industry are elevated within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. For too long the fishing industry has been the poor relation in this family. A fishing villages initiative programme should be developed and implemented that would give control of inshore fishing to local fishermen. We must ensure that sufficient funds are made available in order to both maintain and retain the Northern Ireland fishing fleet and its associated industries such as the processing and sale of fish produce.
Those currently involved with the fishing industry are crying out for acknowledgement and assistance in their struggle to keep their heads above water. Although attention to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis is essential, the Minister has failed to act in the same quick and decisive manner in relation to the fishing crisis. She must make a greater effort for the sake of the communities that we represent. Some of those people affected are here today. They are held together through fishing; for many of them it is not only a job, it is a way of life.
The crisis is not a recent occurrence, it is one that has been simmering for years. The fishermen need someone to fight their corner, as they are getting nowhere on their own. We ask the Minister to fight their corner; we ask her to make that commitment today. Doors are already slamming in their face everywhere they go, and that is frustrating. If one looks at the evidence, one cannot blame fishermen for asking whether, once again, the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is being considered expendable. I ask the Minister — indeed, I demand of the Minister — that she prove me wrong.

Ms Jane Morrice: In view of the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, I must ask participants to limit their contributions to nine minutes.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: As long ago as December 1999 — well over a year ago — the fishermen’s representatives met with my Committee to tell us of the difficulties they faced. We have met with them again on a number of occasions since that day. We have also had meetings with the Minister and with her officials, and we have written to the Minister to seek action to relieve the real financial catastrophe faced by those men and by the entire fishing industry.
I must remind the House that, through compulsory curtailment of their activities, fishermen are being deprived of their means of earning a living. That is what this is about. It is putting them out of the position in which they can earn a living and support their families. That is the crisis we face today — men who have the ability and the wherewithal to make a living through fishing are being pushed out. The country is telling them that they cannot do it. They are being forced to give up the major part of their income without any compensation whatsoever.
It is surely not right that a man can be stopped from doing his legitimate work. What are we stopping them for? This country had the greatest asset of any country in Europe — the fishing grounds. What has it done? It has thrown them away. I am from Northern Ireland, but in Europe today Spaniards can get up and tell me of their right to fish my fishing grounds. Europe is dictating a policy to put the people of this part of the United Kingdom out of business altogether. It is not as if those men can find some other use for their fishing boats. One of their representatives put it to our Committee. He said:
"We cannot diversify by turning our fishing boats into golf courses."
They cannot diversify — they are just out on the street.
The boat owners still have to pay their bills, of course. They cannot let their boats rot away in port. Their crew members need money to live on. Could any Member of the House exist on £54 a week? We are asking those fishermen to do that. Although we have been assured that a decommissioning scheme is a priority, by the time it appears it may be too late for many of them. They will already be out of business. Remember that in any decommissioning scheme the Government are going to claw back all the money that fishermen ever received in grants. Therefore, even if it were a good decommissioning scheme, fishermen would probably have nothing left at the end.
Financial aid is needed immediately. Why can we not have a scheme that would compensate the owners adequately for tying their boats up for this short period? Why can we not have that? And why can we not find ways and means to help our fishing industry when other countries can? Article 16 of EU Regulation 2792/99 makes it perfectly clear that payment of compensation is specifically permitted not only to fishermen and owners of vessels, but to the processing industry affected by stock recovery plans. That is contained in European legislation. Why can that not apply to us? When our Committee put that to the Minister on 5 March, her response was to agree that the rules do allow compensation, but that it was not practical to pursue the proposal for this year’s closures. The compensation was there, yet those closures came upon us this year.
Why is there no representation to Europe now? Why are we not knocking on the door? What about MrFischler’s recent statement? The Minister has given the Committee an undertaking to carry out an assessment of the effects of this year’s closures and consult with the other Fisheries Ministers on the arrangements for next year. Next year will be too late.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, Mr Savage, and I met with the Minister this morning and pressed the case. We said that the door was closed and that the Minister had to knock on it and take her proposals to Europe. They will say, "No, no, no", but, eventually, if it is France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal, the door will open. It is time the door opened for those fishermen sitting in the Public Gallery who are facing disaster for their families and their employment. The Minister must do something about the situation and do it with determination. She will have the backing of every Member.

Mr George Savage: I am pleased to see representatives from the fishing industry in the Public Gallery to hear local politicians debate this very important issue. That proves the value of a local Administration; we are talking about their future and their livelihoods.
The serious situation in the fishing industry is being forgotten in the midst of the real crisis that we are experiencing with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The crisis in the fishing industry has been going on for the past 18 months, and there is real hardship and suffering in the fishing community. Boat owners have lost £50,000 in the past two years. A crew on a wage of £54 a week is hardly an economic statistic of which the Minister or anyone in the Assembly can be proud.
The way in which the fishing industry has been treated is evidence of a deeper problem — the way that the UK Government enforce European Union Regulations. Britain always enforces the rules to the maximum — to the absolute letter of the law — while other European partners continue to do exactly as they please, to their benefit and to suit their community. Our fishermen take care to conserve fish stocks, especially of young fish, yet our European partners sweep the seabed, eliminating young fish in the process and destroying the future raw material of the fishing industry. That vital raw material ends up being fed to animals, not even to humans. That is a crazy and irresponsible attitude. As a country we are going to have to address the issue of the difference between the levels of enforcement of European Regulations throughout the Community as a matter of urgency.
A new generosity of spirit needs to enter the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the fishing industry. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) does not compensate in the event of a tie-up of fishing boats. That is bad policy and flies in the face of European Union Regulations that allow for compensation in the event of tie-up for fish stock recovery purposes. Only yesterday ‘The Times’ demanded that MAFF be closed down. The conduct of MAFF is hardly a good example for our Department in Northern Ireland. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should be following the European norm rather than the bad administrative example set by MAFF.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that she will look at this in the next round. The hardship caused by the tie-up of boats is being felt now. Relief is needed now. The Department treats the fishing industry in niggardly ways. It should remember that this is the second year of closures for Northern Ireland trawlermen, while it is only the first year for the North Sea fishermen. The situation is therefore more serious here. The Irish Government do not even charge their fishermen for lighthouses, which they no longer use in any case. However, we do charge for lighthouses — because MAFF says that we should.
I am not getting at our Minister, as I know that she has a very difficult job to do. However I ask her to remember that our fishermen cannot, unlike their Southern counterparts, benefit from fishing in fishing boxes that are not closed. The situation is getting worse because those boxes have been further restricted since 2000. Their situation is so much more serious that the Department must consider special status for them.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could make representations on behalf of the fishing industry. That would be of immediate benefit. I am thinking of the boundary of the Irish Sea cod fishery, which has been restricted to 4°50’ west. This should be returned to 5° west as it was in 2000 since that will cause confusion for both the fishermen and the inspectorate.
The haddock fishery derogation should have been extended until 30 April 2001, for example. The cut-off date — 22 April — was a Thursday, which did not even allow for a full week’s fishing for our fishermen. Those are small matters, but in a situation like this, even small things can help. The deal that those fishermen have received so far is so niggardly — especially in the light of the further closures in 2001 — that they merit special status.
I quote from a paper that was discussed on Thursday 15 February 2001. My Chairperson was at the meeting. Our colleague’s
"calls for financial aid to be made available to Northern Ireland’s fishermen were given the thumbs up in Strasbourg this week when his report on Cod Fishing in the Irish Sea sailed through the Plenary unanimously."
That was on 15 February 2001.
"The Commission’s savage … cuts" —
I had nothing to do with those cuts, of course —
"have done little to improve depleting fish stocks, and it is with great reluctance that we must now accept the emergency closures of four fishing areas, including areas of the Irish Sea"
said our colleague.
He continued:
"It is very hard for fishermen, many already facing financial hardship, to take on board a closure of their area for some twelve weeks. It is even harder when there are no support mechanisms available to help the industry find a way forward."
Bear this in mind:
"The Commission says ‘let the national authorities come forward with ideas and we will take them on board’ but the Government seems incapable of coming forward with any sincere proposals to help fishermen in the Province.
That is why [this] report proposes that financial assistance be made available to fishermen, not only to those who choose to decommission their vessels but also to those who are forced to keep their trawlers in port during the stock replenishment period. [Our] MEPs share [the] concern" —
our three MEPs from Northern Ireland —
"and support [the] proposals, it now remains to be seen whether the Commission will act."
I come back to what I said earlier:
"let the national authorities come forward with ideas and we will take them on board."
Those proposals have got to be put forward to help our industry survive. If not, the fishing industry will face the same problems as many other parts of the agriculture industry. It is not going to be here in a couple of years’ time.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind Members that it is not normal practice to refer to people in the Gallery.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I shall certainly not refer to the welcome that one would give to the people in the Gallery, which is forbidden by you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I support the motion. However, I have one small, or perhaps large, difficulty with it. That is the intention to provide short-term financial assistance to the fishing industry. That is our immediate problem, but the real problem is much bigger than that and much more of a long-term problem. In a sense, the necessity for short-term financial assistance is a result of the common fisheries policy, which has as its core the preservation of species for recovery. There is an inbuilt injustice when the European Union, which includes ourselves, requires conservation but is not prepared to pay for it.
That is really what this is all about. This is not the first year but the second year of the particular closure for white fish fishing. Last year was the same as this year. There is double jeopardy this year because other fishing grounds, which were a temporary alternative, are now also closed. As other Members have said, from Friday 23 March until 30 April — a five-week period — boats in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie are tied up because they have nowhere to fish for their traditional catch. Unless, and this is the contradiction, they change their gearing and fish for nephrops. However, we have a problem with nephrops because this year the European Commission also reduced the total allowable catch of nephrops by 10%.
There are a series of inbuilt contradictions that are not the fault of the local Northern Ireland fishing industry, but the fault, or design, of the European Union. That is a grave injustice, given that the Northern Ireland fishermen and their organisations have constantly supported the conservation aspects of their industry.
One could argue that the Northern Ireland fishing fleet has made the greatest proportional sacrifice in the entire European Union through its contribution to conservation. Not only that, it has been proactive in proposing schemes to aid recovery plans for different species, yet those schemes have not been adopted. The Northern Ireland fishing industry has made the most major contribution, as we can easily see. The fleet has already been reduced by 30% — from around 240 boats to roughly 170 boats. That is an enormous proportional contribution, and it has not been matched by other EU member states. It is ironic that the Republic of Ireland has the ability to increase its fishing efforts while we in Northern Ireland have the disability of decreasing our fishing efforts, even though — if I may use a cliché — we are literally fishing in the same pool.
Another matter that strikes me as odd is that, away back in 1993, the European Commission made a special report on the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I remember quoting from it on one of my visits to Brussels. It said quite clearly that the Northern Ireland fishing industry and its major fishing grounds were a special case. Because of the industry’s importance to the community and the onshore development that arises from it, and because it creates 50% of the employment in the fishing towns and villages, it is a special factor. It is also a special factor because, believe it or not, the Irish Sea is a special ecological biomass for the recovery of species.
The European Union said that in 1993, yet we have been unable to get a UK Government to pursue that special case, because it did not include the other ports around Great Britain. I remember, late night after late night at the House of Commons, making that plea, which always fell on deaf ears. As a result we have the problem of penetrating the apparently impenetrable blockade from Belfast to London to Brussels.
We must, in some way, create protocols by which that would happen.
Members have correctly and eloquently put on record the statistics that reflect the horrific situation that the fishing industry is in. Given the time constraints it is not appropriate to repeat those, but there are three issues that must be addressed as a matter of some immediacy.
The first is the decommissioning scheme that was to have been put in place. I know that it has been held up pending agreement on the transitional Objective 1 programme. Now that that has been agreed, I hope that we are ready to move on that as soon as the other rules and regulations — which have nothing to do with the fishing industry — have been approved.
I have some misgivings about a decommissioning scheme, even though it is absolutely essential. I am terrified that some day, if we pursue this avenue and not other avenues, the Northern Ireland fishing fleet will reach a critical point where it can no longer sustain itself or the onshore factories and products that are so dependent upon it. We shall probably not know when that time will be until it arrives, but I am very wary of pursuing decommissioning with negative, rather than positive, action.
Meanwhile, we have skippers and crewmen tied up for the next number of weeks when they could be enjoying lucrative fishing. That is not their fault. It is the result of EU Regulations. Funding apparently could not be made available, although I have yet to be convinced of that.
Unfortunately I must scrap most of what I wanted to say today. However, there was a debate in the House of Commons on 25 January in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he would not rule anything out as regards urgent financial arrangements for the fishing industry. I took that in the positive sense, but it seems that I should have taken it in the negative sense — that he would rule nothing in. Nothing at all has happened on that issue.
Secondly, in relation to the "tie-up" proposals — and I know that that term is not liked — we are dealing with close working units of boat, crew and skipper. If those people have to stay ashore and take other jobs — albeit perhaps temporary ones — there is a danger that the skills, along with the total heritage of knowledge, will be dissipated and not brought to bear again on the industry. That can never be recovered — and certainly not in one generation. That aspect concerns me greatly.
Thirdly, we were promised that the further 10% reduction on nephrops, which was applied to assist cod recovery, would be lifted somewhat were statistics available to show that that percentage was not as high as the EU set it out to be. It was not as high — I think that the figure was around 0·2% — and therefore it was not a meaningful figure in terms of that restriction. The restriction must be removed immediately.
With 2,500 people dependent on the fishing industry, I want to see at least those three issues addressed immediately. Finally, I regret that the motion was not allowed to have total cross-community support, as was intended at the meeting in Portavogie. South Down Members were to be asked to sign the motion, but that did not happen.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In supporting the motion, and asking for short-term financial assistance for the fishing industry, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must strike a balance and address the long-term problems that the fishing fleet faces.
It is unfortunate that on 21 March, when meeting the fish producers, the Minister, Ms Rodgers, appeared once again to rule out any form of "tie-up" scheme. The Minister must realise that 2,500 people are employed in the sea fishing industry. The problem affects not only the fishermen, but businesses and employment — in fact the whole economy. The fishing industry will lose out if we do not support it and provide it with what it needs. Can we afford to create such a situation in another industry? My constituency of South Down is feeling the effects of foot-and-mouth disease. The fishing industry has been the backbone of areas of South Down, such as Kilkeel, Portavogie and Ardglass, for many years. There are 2,500 people employed in sea fishing, and up to 50% of that workforce comes from Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie.
In 1999, £2·6 million worth of fish and shellfish was landed in the north of Ireland, and a further £70 million was added to the value of the industry by 44 local processing companies. The introduction of the Irish Sea cod recovery programme and the closure of fishing grounds have had a great impact on the fishing industry. Our fishing fleet has shrunk by 30% over the past 10 years, and there are only 170 fishing vessels more than 10 metres in length left.
Our fishing industry has never depended on tie-up schemes, compensation or subsidies. The current proposals for tie-up schemes have been forced on us by the British Government and the EU. The fishermen want to go to sea and earn a living. They do not want to see the slow death of the fishing industry or the devastation that that will bring to the fishing communities’ economy. The 9·6% increase in the budget for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development provided the sea fisheries division with an extra £125,000. However, all of that additional money has been spent on enforcing the cod recovery programme.
The delay in the decommissioning of fishing vessels is linked to the delay in transitional Objective 1 funding. We need more action and more money. Fishermen were told in November 1999 that the impact of the cod recovery plan would be offset. We are now in the second year of closure. We need legislation, and I am sure that we shall get all-party support for that.
We have been waiting for an announcement on the decommissioning of fishing vessels for 18 months. It is sad that, while other EU fishing fleets are expanding, EU rules, regulations and closures mean that decommissioning our fleet is the only option for many fishermen. We need assistance for decommissioning for those who want to leave the industry and financial assistance for those who want to stay.
Many fishermen who have traditionally fished off the County Down coast have been forced to fish in the North Channel. Those fishermen face closure because of the EU decision on the cod recovery programme that was made on 13 February. Next year, the closure in the North Channel and the Irish Sea will happen together. Where will our white fish fleet go? This is the only area with a recovery plan that includes inshore water. Fishermen here do not have the opportunity to fish away from close fishing grounds, and there is no reason why the financial problems that we faced last year will not be repeated — in fact, they will be far worse — owing to the additional closures.
We need an immediate financial package for the white fish fleet. There are 13 boats tied up in Kilkeel, and they are losing their crews because there is no money to pay them. Financial aid has been introduced by other EU member states: Holland, Belgium, France and the South of Ireland, but not here. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: Many of the problems experienced by the fishermen have been aired in the Chamber today. There has been considerable unanimity. I shall not repeat all that has been said. I congratulate the six Members for Strangford on working together to bring such an essential topic to the Chamber. I apologise on behalf of Kieran McCarthy, who is elsewhere on Assembly business. I shall do my best to speak for him. As a representative of South Antrim who lives in a rural area, I know more about the other areas for which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has responsibility than I do about the fishing fleet. During Committee meetings here and on the occasion on which we met them in the three fishing ports — with rather exciting results — fishermen’s representatives have made the Agriculture Committee aware of the problems that the industry is having. It is obvious that something must be done to help them.
The necessity for conservation measures is a matter for debate. Unfortunately, it is considered only in the latter part of the year, just before the Fisheries Council meets, leaving little time to plan for what will happen in the springtime. We all know, of course, that counting fish numbers for quotas is an inexact science. The Minister has acknowledged that counting sheep numbers in recent weeks has been a bit of a problem; sheep, at least, have the decency to stay on the surface of the land, although we cannot necessarily be sure which bit of the surface they are on. Let us assume that the conservation measures required by Brussels are accurate. Eddie McGrady said correctly that we should not discuss only the short-term problems; there is a long-term issue. Notwithstanding that, what can the Minister do in the short term to deal with the immediate problem that faces fishermen?
There is no doubt that the decommissioning scheme is somewhat belated. I am not sure whether it is welcome, but it is almost certainly necessary to allow people who are reaching the end of their career to depart from the industry with a degree of dignity. Today, we must consider what we should do, not for the people who are prepared to decommission their vessels but for those who wish to continue in the fishing industry and who have a long-term future there. That has not been addressed properly, and the decommissioning scheme is all that is on offer.
Concerns about the implementation of the cod recovery programme have been highlighted already. There is the question of the diversion to fishing for nephrops and all the problems and additional difficulties that that may create. It is noticeable that there has been wider agreement than we would normally expect on the tie-up scheme because of that difficulty. It is perhaps the first time that fishermen and conservationists have agreed that a tie-up scheme could serve the economic needs of fishermen in the short term and the need for conservation of fish stocks in the long term. That has not been given the attention that it should have been given in recent weeks.
A few weeks ago, the fishermen gave the Committee details of what their needs are, and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd (ANIFPO) put out a detailed plan as to how such a scheme could be implemented. So far, the only response we seem to have received from the Minister and her officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is that it is not really the done thing in UK policy and that up to the present it has not happened.
The fishermen — and MLAs — might reasonable ask what is the point of devolution if the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is not in a position to look to the real needs of Northern Ireland and forget what is done in England, Scotland and Wales. As Northern Ireland representatives, we expect our Ministers to respond to the needs of Northern Ireland and not to take the view that Whitehall may not approve. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has given us some very positive examples of that. When the issue of beef support came up a while ago she produced a scheme that suited Northern Ireland better than that which was being implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. She exercised her discretion then.
There is absolutely no doubt that she has exercised considerable discretion regarding the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. She has made a much stronger case for Northern Ireland than that which has been made in Great Britain. We must ask her what she is now going to do on behalf of the fishermen.
There have been many clichés recently. It has been said that fishermen are experiencing something similar to foot-and-mouth disease, but I do not believe that to be the case. What they are going through is something more like foot-and-mouth disease, BSE and swine vesicular disease all wrapped together. They are now experiencing their second year of crisis. There has been some aid for the beef industry and for pig producers in the past. However, there has been absolutely nothing of short-term benefit, and almost nothing of long-term benefit, for fishermen.
That is why we must ask the Minister to give us a real answer; not just some hopes and recitations as to what is being done by the MAFF-approved decommissioning scheme.
Short-term aid is needed for fishermen because they have had to make short-term decisions. They are faced with the situation whereby the Fisheries Council decides, just before December, what is going to happen a few months later. I do not know how anyone running a business, especially one such as fishing or farming, is expected to take decisions three months before serious changes are to be implemented because a diktat appears when the Council of Ministers meets. In the face of the short-term decisions that are made affecting fishermen, they have every right to make the case for short-term aid to help them cope. That is what would happen in other aspects of agriculture.
There is a case for a tie-up scheme. Other Members have already elaborated on it and I shall not go through it again. The case is there; it is just, and it is reasonable. It is essential so that stocks can recover and fishermen who wish to continue in the industry can prepare for the future. I trust that the Minister will listen to the unanimous view that is being expressed in the Chamber.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I support the motion. I congratulate Mr Shannon on the very thorough manner in which he has laid out the case for the Northern Ireland fishermen. I would like to thank Mr Alan McCulla, the chief executive of ANIFPO, for the information he provided and for how well he has represented the views of the fishermen.
To back up what Mr Ford has said, the motion is supported by all the elected representatives for Strangford and the other areas in which fishing takes place. Undoubtedly, the question on the lips of the fishermen from Portavogie, which is within my constituency, Ardglass and Kilkeel will be, "Is the Assembly going to be part of the solution to our problems or will it simply add another tier of bureaucracy?". The question does bear scrutiny, because we have heard the view of elected representatives from all parties that, to a large extent, bureaucracy is hampering our fishing industry.
I refer to a letter from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Bríd Rodgers, to the chief executive of the ANIFPO. I quote from the second paragraph:
"I have explained to the Committee that it has not been policy to compensate for closures or quota reductions. To reverse this position would require detailed consultation and agreement amongst the fisheries departments in the member state. In addition, while there is no provision in EU regulation for payment of compensation in such circumstances, the proposed compensation must be argued and approved before the recovery plan is introduced."
The question that raises for the Minister today — and Members have already mentioned this — is why, considering that she has put forward a case that Brussels and Westminster are undoubtedly promoting, we are getting concrete information that suggests that the Dutch Government and their fishermen have reached an agreement to introduce an aid package that is exactly the type of scheme we seek for fishermen in Northern Ireland. We seek a short-term scheme to deal with the current problem that is facing the fishing industry here.
Members have already said that what we are facing in Northern Ireland is the prospect of the ruination of the age-old tradition of fishing in our major ports of Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass. As Dr Paisley has said, this is not simply the end of an industry. It will have a catastrophic effect on the villages and townlands in those areas, where 50% of the people are employed in the fishing industry in some shape or form. It will be particularly so on the Ards Peninsula and down the coast to Kilkeel.
Many of the men who are sitting in the Public Gallery today are facing a road down which, as Mr McGrady has said, they do not wish to go — the road to decommissioning. Years ago many of them were encouraged to take out large loans and mortgage their homes. Those are men who have no option but to go with whatever scheme is available to take them out of their present situation, in which they risk losing everything that they have in the world. They do not have the luxury of any other options. As Mr McGrady has rightly pointed out, what we are looking at today is only a short-term fix, a way of dealing with the current crisis.
I want to say to the fishermen and their representatives that we know that they are proud men who simply want the right to fish. They are not looking for handouts; they are not looking for money to tie up their boats or destroy them. What they want to do is fish. The problem for those men and their families is that the bureaucratic system in Brussels and at Westminster is preventing them from doing what is their natural right to do.
I understand that the amount of money required to introduce and implement a short-term scheme for five weeks is relatively small — some £760,000 if my figures are correct. That money must be found urgently. Where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that when this debate is over and the Minister has given her reply, the fishermen will leave this Chamber in the knowledge that the issue will not be going away.
It is not enough for parties to support the motion only to allow bureaucracy to be used once again as an excuse for failing to deliver the required money. Failure by the Assembly to find that money in the short term, cut through the red tape and deliver the money right now will mean failure for us and ruin for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Three of the sectors in Strangford and South Down are vital to the economy — farming, textiles and fishing — and we all know about the decline affecting those three major industries. It is evident from the press releases published before any debate in the Assembly that the plight of our fishermen will receive a fair hearing. The press, in its coverage, has also captured the local mood, but that alone will not be enough. Sympathy will not pay a single wage. We do not want to have a nine-day wonder, marked by a good deal of talk and nice words without any affirmative action to match.
Farming has received a great deal of publicity because of BSE and the scourge of foot-and-mouth disease, and farmers will receive some assistance. I impress on Members that no one begrudges them a penny of that money, especially fishermen. However, we must not fail to assist the fishing industry, which is also facing a crisis, in every way that we can. The help requested by the fishermen, because of the cod recovery plan, will be short-term help. The closed area will exist for around five weeks, from now until the end of April. At present, boats are tied up, and they will remain so until the fishermen are allowed to resume fishing.
Let us not overlook the simple fact that fishermen have not received one penny in subsidy — that in itself is a remarkable fact. This industry is worth £90 million a year; it is a vital part of our local economy, and it must be assisted to enable it to survive. Perhaps we could follow the example set in Scotland. Its Parliament gave fishermen more than sympathy — it gave them financial help. As we all know, there is money in the Northern Ireland system, and some of it will be spent in less important ways, such as on the Civic Forum, which costs taxpayers millions of pounds a year. The fishing industry is now crying out for help, and we should divert some of that money to the fishermen.
The fishermen do not want the Minister of Agriculture to say "I hear what you are saying. I sympathise. We shall lobby Europe.", and so on. They are here today, and they are asking the Assembly to tell them exactly what will be done for them. This is a call for short-term aid; the fishermen are not asking for long-term aid today, although that must be dealt with sooner rather than later. They are asking for the aid that other countries, such as Spain, Italy, Belgium and Holland, are giving to their fishing industries. These European countries have all given assistance under article 16 of the EU Regulation 2792/1999.
Under the Belgian scheme, for example, 300 boats received fixed costs as compensation for being tied up. In Holland, £7,000 was paid to each owner for eight consecutive days when their boats were tied up. No wonder they were happy with the scheme. The Spanish authorities gave their fishermen a massive 60 million euros. Of course some countries just ignore the regulations, which were so slavishly imposed on us. France, for example, failed to set appropriate rules for use of quotas and also failed to monitor fishing and the enforcement of regulations. Even more striking, why are the fishing fleets of other countries increasing in numbers when ours is decreasing? The Republic of Ireland has recently taken possession of 16 new trawlers. How can that be? Where is the level playing field?
According to the Department’s figures, there are 344 locally licensed vessels.
Almost 700 people are directly employed in catching and more than 1,000 in processing. Those figures are probably an underestimate, as many interests directly depend on fishing. The number of people employed probably amounts to 2,500.
Of more significance is that half the working population in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie is directly employed in fishing. We are dealing here with real people with real needs who will not have any income at all for the next five weeks.
The fishermen have not been idle throughout all this. They have written, they have lobbied, they have done all they can to persuade, but it seems that so far they have not been successful. Therefore, they are here today to look to their own Assembly and to ask for help.
There are small steps that can be taken immediately. Let the Minister tell us, for example, that the payment of light use will be removed. The Minister has pledged to remove that. Can we be told today that she has at last been successful? If not, why has that issue not been resolved? It would at least help in a small way to alleviate hardship.
I draw Members’ attention to the letter sent by Dr Paisley on behalf of the Agriculture Committee, which set out the case for the fishermen. Although that letter was specific, the response from the Department gave no indication of any real and practical help. The fishermen do not want to have repeated back to them what their problems are. They already know only too well. What they want to hear are the measures that will be introduced to help them.
We all know that fishermen take great risks to bring in their valuable harvest, which contributes much to the Northern Ireland economy. That deserves recognition and the DUP recognises the importance of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland to the lives and incomes of those who live in the fishing communities.
However, what saddens me is that, all across Europe, Parliaments fight tooth and nail to protect their own industries. Time after time the Spanish, for example, get concession after concession. Meanwhile, all the cutbacks and hardships seem to fall on the Northern Ireland fishing industry without there being any help or compensation. Is that fair? Can the Assembly look those fishermen in the eye and say, "You are on your own"? They did not do so in Scotland. On the contrary, they gave them help. Can we afford to do less? The Minister must be more assertive in dealing with MAFF.
Are we exaggerating all this? Ask the fishermen whether all this is exaggerated, whether they have money coming in, whether they have money to pay wages, whether their boats are tied up, whether the banks have started to look for repayments. Who would dare tell them that they are not a deserving case? Ask those who have walked away from the fishing industry why they did so. They will say that they had no money coming in to pay wages and bills.
We have all the evidence before us and now is the acid test. What will the Assembly do? It will not take much money. Approximately £3,300 per vessel per week — the total will depend on the number of vessels involved — will give much needed help to those whose entire industry is facing catastrophe.
I welcome the Minister’s written response that the vessel decommissioning scheme is a priority. However, when will it be finalised? Indeed, when can it start? Must those fishermen wait until they are bankrupt? Those are central questions. Why could not the decommissioning scheme have been introduced at the same time as the cod recovery programme? Besides, what is wrong with our fishing industry that the fishermen have, it seems, only the option of decommissioning, when other countries not only get help but increase their fleet? How can that be? Is that right?
With each year’s closure, the problems for fishermen are compounded. I welcome the Minister’s move to get more training for fishermen, but that will not produce food on the table today. I also welcome her intention to carry out an assessment of this year’s closure. However, what amazes me is that we already had one year of closure. All we need to do is assess that to know what the impact has been and will be. Why can that not be done?
That again will not pay the bills that need to be paid now. What we need is a full meeting with MAFF. It seems to me that MAFF is the weakest link in all of this. It does not appear to be doing all that is necessary. After this debate is over, we need a meeting involving the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, Members from constituencies that are directly affected by the cod recovery programme and representatives of the fishing industry.
With the support and backing of the Assembly, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should seek an urgent meeting with MAFF to discuss those issues and secure a positive result.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I support the motion in the hope that it will highlight the fact that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces as uncertain a financial future as the farming industry. I hope that the Minister and her Department will act immediately to introduce measures that will be meaningful and practical for those who earn their living from the sea. Mr Shannon and many of the Members who have spoken have given the financial facts of the current plight faced by fishermen. I do not intend to repeat those figures. Instead, I aim to concentrate the mind of the House, and especially that of the Minister, on the reality of the present situation for those who rely on fishing for a living.
For the next five weeks, the white fish fleet, which operates out of ports such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, will simply have nowhere to go. It has nowhere to fish, and it has nothing to do. That is the bottom line of the current crisis, which is a result of the latest restrictions announced by Brussels.
However, although the right to fish may stop, other things do not: banks still expect loans to be met; it is necessary to keep paying insurance bills; and the costs and charges for hiring equipment must still be met. As well as the right to fish, all that will stop are the wages of crews employed on the affected vessels, together with a reduction in revenues at processing plants et cetera. Unless some sort of aid is provided over the next crucial five-week period there is a distinct possibility that a substantial part of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet will go out of business. The Assembly, and especially the relevant Department, should be moving heaven and earth to prevent that.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what is happening. Compared to the compensation efforts made in the agriculture sector, the response of the Department to the fishing crisis has — to say the very least — been weak. We are told that the policy has not been to compensate for closure or for quota restrictions. As all Members know, policy can be changed. It can be changed, Minister, if the will exists to change it.
The Department admits that there is provision to pay compensation, but that it must be argued and approved before the recovery plan is implemented. However, the Dutch Government are introducing an aid package to assist their fishermen following the introduction of closures associated with the North Sea cod recovery plan, and they are doing that without prior argument or approval. Again, it can be done if the will exists to do it.
Fishermen want to hear the Minister tell them how she is going to help them. I hope that they will receive the type of reply I wish to hear — that the Minister and her Department value and are concerned about the future of Northern Ireland’s fishing industry and that she will act to protect fishermen’s futures with the same speed she has shown towards the farmers.
The figure involved is £760,000. That is not a large sum in the context of Northern Ireland’s budget. However, for many fishermen and their families it represents the difference between a future and no hope. I urge the Assembly to provide that hope and support.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. Like DavidFord, I am from a rural area, although I probably know more about agricultural matters than about fishing. There are, however, great similarities between them. I visited those areas on one occasion with a Colleague, and we were warmly received. In fact, I even noticed that some people diversified into food production for the day.
However, I am quite sure that if the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee were to visit some of the areas I represent, he would find that diversification goes on there too. I do not hold anything like that against people or communities.
It was a good learning process, however, and it was very useful to see at first hand the difficulties, the areas concerned, how the population was made up and the coastline, of which I was unaware until that occasion.
As Members, our first responsibility is to work for the plight of communities, wherever they are — be they in Fermanagh, Portavogie or anywhere else. Their problems and day-to-day difficulties are the same. The problem is that people in coastal communities have far fewer options in respect of what they can do should their main industry fail.
I think that the Chairperson said earlier that this was a historic problem — a historic failure in terms of our negotiations when entering the EU. The natural resources, which existed for those populations and communities, were simply negotiated away in favour of other things for other parts of our industry. To a large degree we lost our fishing grounds all around the coast of Ireland to people such as the Spanish, who moved in with factory ships and for the most part cleaned the waters out.
Others have already mentioned the facts. Fishing is important to the area — 50% of the civilian workforce are involved in that industry in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. In 1993 — I think that another Member mentioned this — a report stated that fishing in that area should be maintained as a priority, because those communities had very few options, if any, to move into any other type of industry.
The fleet in the South of Ireland was able to be increased by 36%, whereas that in the North has had to suffer a 30% reduction. That highlights the commitment of the Governments, North and South. The commitment of the Government in the South — and this was pointed out to us by the representatives of those in the fishing industry on whose behalf they negotiated — was massively different from that of MAFF and the British Government.
I do not blame our Minister, for she had very little to do with it. What the British Government want to do and how they see policy in England as opposed to the north Down coast — or any part of Ireland for that matter — and, indeed, the importance they attach to those communities is probably beyond her scope.
That is the difficulty. The problem that one will have to surmount is to try to convince a Government that are totally biased in respect of small communities and people who are meaningless to them in terms of their overall plan. That will not be easy to do.
I mentioned MAFF in GB and British Government policies. British Government policies on agriculture and fishing — and there are similarities between the two — are unsuitable here. They are unsuitable for fishing and small fishing villages here. When the British Government go to Europe to negotiate on behalf of the fishermen, that is how they operate. In fact, we are now in a position in which BSE and the foot-and-mouth disease problem have probably overshadowed the present attempts by the fishing communities to negotiate. This is an important time for them, but they are likely to be pushed into the background. They are now expected to tie up their industry more than a month, and that means a loss of income.
The representatives of the fishing communities, particularly Dick James and Alan McCulla, were very forceful in getting their message across to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. There is no question of that. They did a particularly good job in comparison with almost everyone else who presented issues to the Committee. They tried to get their message through to the Committee. The problem is that the Committee cannot impact beyond advising the Minister. It is for the Minister to work with Nick Brown and others in the British Government to try and make things happen in terms of action that will be of some use and some benefit in those communities. That is the problem. However, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee will do all it can to represent the views and issues that those people brought to the Committee.
The fishing community has had problems in trying to alleviate a situation in which all they wanted was some financial assistance and short-term compensation for losses last year of approximately £6 million. They will have no income for more than a month. They have costs and bank charges to pay, and they may have to risk their lives at other times of the year to go out and fish when the weather is unsuitable. That has to be taken into account. I do not know whether MAFF or any other British Government Department takes that into account when making its policies.
Owing to the foot-and-mouth disease, the Agriculture Minister and the Department asked people to close their industries and businesses voluntarily. They did not force them to close, because if they had done so compensation would have had to be paid. I wonder whether there is anything in that for the fishermen. They are being forced to close down their businesses for a period.
I support the motion. It is timely in representing the views of the communities in the areas mentioned. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Jim Wells: I congratulate my Friend Mr Shannon for raising this issue, ably supported by Mrs Robinson. It is a timely motion, and it is appropriate — with all the noise and clamour about foot-and-mouth disease — that we remember that another crucial aspect of Northern Ireland’s rural economy is in dire straits.
One of the disadvantages of speaking late in a debate is that many of the points have been made. I apologise to Mr Shannon for being late, but on the basis that the debate was to begin at 6.00 pm I arranged a meeting in Kilkeel — of all places — for 2.30 pm. I managed to get that over with fairly quickly and came here to be in time for the latter part of the debate.

Mr Jim Shannon: Did you drive slowly?

Mr Jim Wells: I certainly did not.
We are talking about an industry that represents 50% of civilian employment in Kilkeel and Ardglass, both of which are in South Down. Both communities depend on three pillars for their economy: fishing; agriculture and tourism. Sadly, today’s announcement, plus the sheep grazing ban on the Mournes, will mean that tourism and farming in South Down is going to go through a difficult period.
The Minister has been concentrating on the foot-and-mouth crisis — and justifiably so — but I have a sneaking suspicion that that concentration has meant that the needs of the white fish fishermen in Northern Ireland have been ignored. I hope to produce some evidence of that later in my contribution.
The fishing industry is already struggling as a result of the cod recovery plan of 2000. Many Members will remember attending a very heated meeting in the Stormont Hotel about a year ago at which this issue was discussed in some detail by the representatives of the fishing community. At least there were alternatives in 2000. The haddock fishery could be pursued and some fishing grounds were still open to the Kilkeel and Ardglass fleets.
This year, they find themselves with no alternative but to tie up their trawlers. Unfortunately the bank manager and the insurance companies do not take the same attitude. There is no moratorium on interest charges. Insurance companies still want their premiums, and harbour dues still must be paid, so, while fishermen’s debts continue to mount, they have no way of realising an income. Normally in such situations we are asked, "What is the alternative?" — that question has been ringing in Members’ ears for three years — but the fishing representatives have themselves provided the Minister with a realistic alternative that would only cost around £750,000.
That may sound like a great deal of money, but compared with the vast amount of money that has been poured into agriculture in the form of subsidies, it is a drop in the ocean. It is also a drop in the ocean in comparison with the Minister’s present budget for the next two financial years. If a minimum of economies were made, that money could be found within her budget. I wrote to the Minister about that subject, as did many others. I must ask whether the Minister foresaw this situation? If not, why not? I detect from the paperwork that the Department was caught unawares. There is absolutely no excuse for being caught unawares, and for two reasons: first, there was every likelihood of a second recovery plan being introduced for this year; secondly, the Minister had been warned many times by representatives of the fishing industry.
Over the past few weeks, my fax machine has been red hot with warnings from representatives that unless the Department does something, the fishermen will be in dire trouble. When MrMcCulla and MrMcGrady met the Minister last week she did not even seem to have given the proposals adequate consideration. The response was a blanket "No". That was very much in line with a letter that she sent to MrMcCulla on 12March 2001, in which she said:
"I have explained to the Committee that it has not been policy to compensate for closures or quota reductions. To reverse this position would require detailed consultation and agreement among the Fisheries Departments in the member states."
If that is true, why did the Dutch Government immediately implement a compensation aid package for their fishermen simply because they blocked the port of Rotterdam? If the Minister is under the same constraints as other EUMinisters, why could an aid package be implemented in Holland and not in NorthernIreland? Why have the Irish Government been flexible in their interpretation of the regulations to enable generous training grants for attendance at courses et cetera? Why could the Minister not have shown the same flexibility? We are told that nothing can be done:
"In addition, while there is provision in the EUregulation for payment of compensation in such circumstances, the proposed compensation must be argued and approved before the recovery plan is introduced."
The fishermen of southDown want to know whether the Minister argued that case in Europe? If she did, why was she less successful than her Irish and Dutch counterparts? If we are to be effective as an Assembly in representing the people we cannot simply say that nothing can be done or that consultation is required, while we watch equivalent Ministers in other countries deliver for their fishermen. That vital point must be addressed.
Proposals were made for a tie-up scheme that, at a conservative estimate, would cost just £3,300 per trawler per week. That estimate is an indication of the outgoings of trawlermen who will have no income over the next five weeks. The tie-up scheme seemed to be watertight, but it has not been introduced, and we want to know why. The implications of that decision go much further than the fishing industry in Kilkeel and Ardglass. I have no experience of Portavogie. However, Members such as Mrs Robinson and MrShannon have been more than capable of representing their needs. The knock-on effect on the Kilkeel community is much more dramatic than fishermen simply having to tie up their trawlers. At least 13trawlers in that harbour are permanently tied up, and workers are being lost — the men are getting no wages, so they are seeking work elsewhere. There is also a knock-on effect on shops, post offices, banks and the other small businesses in Kilkeel, which account for much more than the £760,000 that we are talking about today.
Ms Rodgers can strike a blow for this Province, and she could do so much to save a community that is going through so many difficulties by saying, "I am going to tear up the regulations and use the power given to me by the Assembly and the Government. I am going to step out of line with my colleagues in Wales because I believe in this fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I believe in an industry that has not taken a penny of subsidies for decades. I believe in an industry that is providing enormous knock-on value and additional employment. I am going to be brave and for this five-week period help the fishermen of South Down."
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those men who have been out working in the most difficult conditions. Some of them have lost their lives. The very least that we can do is come up with the pittance they need to keep going through this enormously difficult period.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I realise that I only have 15 minutes. It is impossible to deal with all that I need to deal with in that time, but I shall do my best. I thank Members for the opportunity to address the Assembly on this very important sector of the Northern Ireland industry.
Many Members have observed, both orally and in correspondence, that the problems of foot-and-mouth disease have diverted my attention from the problems being experienced by the fishing industry. Let me assure all Members that contrary to what Mr Shannon has said, nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that I am here for two hours today while very serious issues are evolving outside shows my commitment to the fishing industry.
The motion has called on me to provide short-term financial assistance to the fishing industry to compensate the fishermen for the restrictions on fishing imposed by the cod recovery plan. I have listened carefully to what Members have had to say, and it is obvious that they share my concern for the plight of our local fishermen.
There is no doubt that for some members of the fleet the fishing opportunity will be very limited in the latter half of the Irish Sea cod recovery programme. That has been exacerbated by the west of Scotland closures referred to by Mr McGrady. Inevitably, that is causing financial difficulties. However, there is a need to balance the requirement to conserve the stocks with the requirement to preserve the livelihoods of the fishermen. If there are no fish left in the sea, we shall not have a fishing industry. That is the balance that must be struck, and it is extremely difficult.
However, our fishermen appreciate that the closures, although painful, are agreed as one means of conserving fish stocks to help ensure a sustainable industry for the future. As Members will be aware, a number of stocks are in a powerless state. Mr Shannon referred to the right to fish. Of course fishermen have the right to fish. What I want to ensure is that they will be able to continue to have that right and that fish will be there to be fished.
I take this opportunity to thank our local industry for its co-operation in the handling of the current cod recovery plan. The vast majority of fishermen have complied with the rules and enabled the plan to proceed. Indeed, they have also contributed very effectively to the negotiations on the implementation.
I totally reject the view that I have failed the fishing industry. I have worked very hard and consulted with it on measures that I am able to pursue to help the industry in the short and long terms. I shall return to those. I absolutely agree with Mr McGrady when he says that the short-term view is important, but the long-term view is also extremely important.
In relation to short-term financial assistance, through agreement among fisheries Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland it has not been policy to compensate for the effects of recovery programmes. Given some of the comments they have made, I am almost tempted to think that some Members on the other side of the House have come around to the idea that it might be better to be part of the Republic of Ireland than to be part of the UK. It is not a cheap political point; I am simply making an observation.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Keep that smile off your face. Sit down.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the past, Members have been brought into line for making comments that are of absolutely no relevance to the subject but simply constitute a cheap political gimmick.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: My time is about to run out. [Interruption]
5.00 pm

Mr Cedric Wilson: On point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask you to consult with the Speaker after this sitting. He has ruled such comments totally out of order in the past.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that point. It will be taken into consideration.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Dr Paisley’s initial remarks that the provision exists for compensation to be sought were correct. However, in a letter that I wrote to him some time back I said that, because it was not submitted to the European Commission by the member state within the approval for the plan, it is not now possible to have it. I also said that I could and would undertake to carry out an assessment of the effects of this year’s closures and to consult with other Fisheries Ministers on future arrangements. I remind the House that those arrangements have to be agreed among the four UK Ministers. It is a decision that has to be taken on an UK-wide basis. It is not for me alone to decide. I have to do it in conjunction with the other Ministers.
However, such compensation schemes have a limited impact. It would be impossible to introduce such a scheme for the current closure period as it would require prior EU approval on state aid, which takes considerable time to obtain.

Mr Jim Wells: What about the Dutch?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I shall come to that if the Member will allow me the time.
The money, even if approved, would have to be found against many other competing demands.
I want to outline the steps I have taken, as well as those being planned, to address the needs of the industry, and I assure Mr Ford that those include those wishing to remain in the industry as well as those wishing to leave.
In the cod recovery plan we secured derogation for a controlled haddock fishery for the first half of closure. That has provided a very useful fishing opportunity in addition to the continued provision for nephrops fishing. The haddock derogation produced 26 tonnes, worth approximately £30,000, in its first two weeks. My officials will be assembling the results of this fishery to present to the European Commission. I hope that the experiment will prove useful in demonstrating the industry’s strong views on the potential for a clean haddock fishery.
I was very disappointed, as were the fishermen, when the Commission imposed a 10% cut on the nephrops total allowable catch (TAC) at December’s Fishery Council. I agree with Mr McGrady’s comments on that issue. I have done everything in my power to have this decision reversed. I immediately held a meeting with my scientists to explore what could be done to get this under way. They have done sterling work in a very short time to produce an analysis that supports our case for retrieving TAC, and that work has been included in the UK case for restoration of the TAC. I have written to the Fisheries Minister, Elliot Morley, asking him to keep the pressure on the Commission to pursue the issue as a matter of urgency.
The results we obtained in Northern Ireland look as though they could help reverse the cut. The by-catch — as has been quite rightly stated by Mr McGrady — has been minimal, and that is a point in our favour. I recognise the importance of nephrops to our local fleet, and I am determined to see this through. Of course, it also has implications for the processing sector and the wider industry. Members should be aware that Northern Ireland was the first region to complete this work, and I want to congratulate all concerned in achieving that.
With regard to structural funds, Members will recall last week’s approval by the European Commission of the Northern Ireland transitional Objective 1 plan for the next six years. Within that, £21 million is earmarked for the fishing sector, and I assure Mr Ford that this is a Northern Ireland plan for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Mr Murphy asked why I did not go ahead with the scheme: I could not go ahead until I had received approval.
In response to industry demands, I am prioritising a vessel decommissioning scheme this year. Dr Paisley expressed reservations to me about the decommissioning scheme this morning, but I pointed out to him, and I repeat now, that this decommissioning scheme is being introduced at the behest of the industry. Its representatives told me that they wanted it, and I have no doubt that if I were standing up here now saying that I had refused it I would be getting flak from all sides — including possibly from Dr Paisley himself — for not having delivered it.
It will be of both short-term and long-term benefit to the industry. It is generally accepted that there is a mismatch between fishing capacity and fish stocks, often described as, "Too many boats chasing too few fish". That applies widely to Europe, not only Northern Ireland. Work is well under way on stock recovery programmes. A decommissioning scheme will facilitate many of those who wish to leave the industry and will, I hope, result in a more viable future. My plan is to target both the white fish and the nephrops sectors through the scheme. I hope to be able to reduce the target sectors by some 15% and to achieve what MrMcGrady referred to as the critical mass — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: MrMcGrady made an extremely constructive and well-informed speech.
In relation to training, in the fisheries plan I have allocated £50,000 per annum over the next threeyears to provide basic and refresher safety training, including risk awareness and accident prevention. That training will be provided locally by our group training association and will be free of charge to the fleet. I have no doubt that Members share my desire to make safety a high priority.
Moreover, and in view of the industry’s understandable concerns about limited fishing opportunities in the coming weeks, I have asked my officials to introduce proposals for additional training, related to the needs of the industry, to be delivered in the near future. I shall seek to ensure that that is properly resourced. The plan also has provision to support processing and marketing in fishery sectors as well as much-needed infrastructure improvement in the fishing ports. My Department plans to enter into discussions with the industry to review research and development in fishing gear and to examine innovations that could be incorporated into local trawls to improve the escapement of juvenile fish.
I have been working on the issue of light dues. As Members will know, I have written to the Department in Great Britain. It has not shown any inclination to waive the fees. I share the wish of the industry to secure a healthy and viable fishing industry and I am not giving up. I want to continue working with the industry and to listen to their concerns.
I assure Mrs I Robinson that although Scotland has announced a £27million scheme, the bulk of that is going on decommissioning. Furthermore, Scotland has a larger fleet than Northern Ireland. According to my Brussels contacts in the fisheries directorate, none of the countries that has been mentioned have been given approval for a compensation tie-up scheme.
Mr Shannon mentioned fishing villages. Those villages have benefited from both the fishing villages initiative and the PESCA programme during the 1994-95 round. A wide range of projects have been funded and are being implemented to help the area’s economy. Mr Shannon also referred to the modernisation grant. That will have to be repaid if the applicant is approved for decommissioning. I have no power to waive that regulation.
Cedric Wilson mentioned other countries. I am not aware of any other tie-up schemes in Europe. That is a matter for the other member states. No other region in the UK has introduced a tie-up scheme. The closed box in the Irish Sea that was mentioned by Mr Savage is actually smaller than it was last year, as a result of our negotiations.
We did well to achieve a five-week haddock derogation. MrWells was wrong. The fleet had a much better haddock derogation this year — five weeks with very good fishing opportunity, despite the weather. MrWells asked whether we saw that coming. He referred to a meeting that I had last week with MrMcGrady and a representative of the industry. It was suggested by DrPaisley that I have had several meetings this year with the industry. In actual fact, that was the only meeting that I have had with the industry, not because I do not want to meet with it, but because I did not receive any requests. I am very open to requests. I meet regularly with everyone who asks for a meeting, and I did have that meeting last week. Had I had other requests, I would have responded to them. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Excuse me — I am talking about the fishing industry. I have almost finished.

Mr Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is misinformation. For the past three months, Ards Borough Council has been asking for a meeting with the Minister and is still awaiting a reply.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Jim Shannon: Nevertheless, it is a good point.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Members have had their say in this debate, and I ask them to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. I request that no further points of order be made until the Minister has finished.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: I shall take one more point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not know what the Minister is talking about. I have the manuscript, which I read to the House. I said
"We have met with them again on a number of occasions".

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is. I have been misrepresented by the Minister. She has said that I said she would not meet those men. I never said those words in the House. Hansard will prove it. It is a point of order, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that it is.

Ms Brid Rodgers: If I have misrepresented the Member, I most humbly apologise. I may have misunderstood him. Nevertheless, I want to make the point that, when requested, I meet people, talk to them and listen to them very carefully.
With regard to the meeting to which Mr Wells referred, which was with a representative of the industry accompanied by Mr McGrady, issues were raised. We did know that the recovery programmes were coming up. I also knew, as did the industry, that it would not be a one-year recovery programme, that it would take a number of years. I did give careful consideration to proposals that were put to me at the meeting — to which Mr Wells referred at second hand — and I gave a practical answer. My door is always open to the industry, and I shall continue to do everything I can.
I also wish to acknowledge the contribution made by the industry to the wider economy, and in particular to the cod recovery plan. Members will be interested to know that the European Commission has recently published its Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy. Over the next week I shall be launching a consultation exercise on that paper to ensure that the needs of the Northern Ireland fishing industry are factored into the debate at June’s Fisheries Council meeting. I fully intend to be present at that and to play a full part.

Mr Jim Shannon: I am bitterly disappointed at the Minister’s response. Not once did she give any hope to the fishing industry in relation to the tie-up scheme of the three major ports or to the representatives of that industry who are sitting in the Gallery.
I made a point of order but was ruled out of order. It was a good point, however, and I shall make it again. Through the offices of Down District Council we have been asking for a meeting with the Minister for three months, and we are still waiting. When the Minister goes back to her office, perhaps she will ask one of her civil servants to scurry around the office to see whether that reminder from Down District Council can be found. It has been lying there for almost three months. Perhaps then we can have a meeting on behalf of the fishing industry which we, the council and MLAs represent.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Member accept that Mr McCulla from ANIFPO also has made several requests for meetings with the Minister? A meeting was set up and then cancelled at very short notice. If the Minister checks with her diary secretary, she will find lots of ANIFPO letters on her desk saying, "Please meet us as soon as possible on this issue".

Mr Jim Shannon: Madam Deputy Speaker, the — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The meeting requested by Mr McCulla was cancelled by Mr McCulla, not by the Minister.

Mr Jim Shannon: I say categorically that that is not so. I was in touch with Mr McCulla concerning this matter, and I know that he was prepared to put himself out at any time, to cancel any meeting, in order to meet the Minister, so that is certainly not my understanding of what took place. I understand that Mr McCulla may be present in the Gallery. I know that he cannot — and will not — speak, but that is certainly my interpretation of my discussion with him.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member is aware that no reference should be made to people in the Gallery.

Mr Jim Shannon: People in the Gallery may be invisible to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they are not invisible to me.
The right to fish is a core issue, and the Minister has not addressed it. Each and every one of the parties took time to deliberate on this issue, which is of great importance to the fishing industry.
I want to summarise some of the points made. In his introduction, Dr Paisley mentioned saving the fishermen from disaster and the fact that they need to earn a living but that there is was no room for them to diversify. Mr Savage, the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, also mentioned the need for a generosity of spirit between agriculture and fishing, and he underlined the immediacy of that need. We come back to that point all the time.
The next time we have a debate on fishing we shall just let Mr McGrady speak, as he says everything for the rest of us. Mr McGrady said that decommissioning would be an integral part of the package but not the whole package. One point he stressed was the short-term need — financial assistance should be made available now.
Over the years I have sat with Mr McGrady in the Ards, Newry and Mourne and Down Councils looking at the fishing industry. Mr McGrady was at the most recent meeting to discuss those important issues. We are looking at a long-term strategy, but the issue today is to do with the cod recovery plan and how we are going to assist the boats with the tie-up scheme.
I thank all Members for their comments. Mr Ford pointed out that assistance for agriculture is already there, but that that same assistance has not been available for the fishing industry. We must look at the source of that assistance. All in the Chamber implore the Minister to acknowledge the needs of the fishing industry.
My Colleague Mrs Robinson referred to the lack of food on the table. Is that not the very essence of this proposal for short-term financial assistance? We represent the people involved in the fishing industry, and they need something now to get them over the five-week period. Their bills continue to arrive and their debts still remain to be paid. The mortgages for the boat and the household bills do not simply stop. The Minister still does not have the compassion to understand the dire needs of the fishing industry.
Mr Hamilton hoped to move heaven and earth to try to help. That is what we want. We want enthusiasm, dedication and a positive approach from the Minister. She can do it, and she has the power to move on this problem. I implore her to look at those fishing matters and to do her best to address the question.
Allow me to return to decommissioning, which was requested by the fishing industry away back in the summer of 1999. Almost two years later we are finally looking at a possible decommissioning scheme. That was the only light to come out of the Minister’s address. Decommissioning is only part of the package. Today we want a tie-up scheme.
Madam Deputy Speaker, is it possible for the Minister to stop talking to her Colleague and listen? Let us listen to the issues — we are not here putting in time. We implore the Minister on behalf of the fishermen of the three villages of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel to do something for them.
I am concerned that the Minister has chosen to make some cheap political points today. We are not here as political parties; we are here on behalf of the people we represent to try to fight for the fishing industry.
I am trying to be respectful of the Minister’s position, but I must remind her that, as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, she has a responsibility to the fishing industry. We have not had one glimmer of hope for the tie-up scheme.
We need to conserve the fishing stocks, but the fishing industry also wants some help to try to overcome this problem. It is interesting that the World Wildlife Fund — a major conservation body — also agrees with the fishing industry. It has a joint plan. It wants to see the fishing industry going forward. Fishing needs to be conserved, and the World Wildlife Fund believes that financial assistance is vital for that to happen.
The Minister said that she would need to have meetings with her Colleagues in Scotland and Wales. Perhaps she could indicate how many meetings she has had on the issue with the other Assemblies and what progress has been made? It would be interesting to see whether any meetings have taken place on a tie-up scheme. Let us in Northern Ireland for once not be subservient to the other parts of the United Kingdom. Let the Assembly lead the way. Let the Minister lead the way on behalf of the fishing industry over the tie-up scheme.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Member agree that the Minister could follow the example of her Dutch counterpart, who, within 24 hours of a protest in Rotterdam harbour, was able to find 14 million euros to help compensate her fishing fleet? Can the hon Lady not follow suit and do exactly the same? She would be applauded by the House if she did.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Madam Deputy Speaker —

Mr Jim Shannon: I am quite happy to give way.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Do I have permission to answer that?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member has given way to the Minister, but I remind the Member that the clock is ticking and that we have only 10 minutes left.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have some resource problems. The Member is talking about the Minister of a member state who has access to the Treasury of that member state. I am the Minister of a region and am not in the same position. I cannot obtain resources at the drop of a hat. I have to compete in the block for all of the resources, and there are many competing demands in Northern Ireland.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has indicated in correspondence with the fishing organisations that she has the wherewithal to make some assistance available. I ask her to deliver on the commitment that she has given to the fishing organisations and elected representatives. She can help the industry, but she must make the effort. The tie-up scheme is what we need, and we need it now. Short-term help for the whole industry is needed at the moment. We are all aware that plenty of money is available when it comes to other organisations such as North/South bodies. Let her make money available. I implore the Minister to take the gracious step and help the fishing industry. It is quite clear to the elected representatives that no constructive response has been forthcoming from the Minister today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to provide short-term financial assistance for the fishing industry due to the restriction coming from the cod recovery programme.
Adjourned at 5.24 pm.